Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Right-wing push poll accidentally finds Obamacare popular

Posted by   + Show Post

Right-wing push poll accidentally finds Obamacare popular

Heritage's new poll oversamples Republicans and asks misleading questions -- but finds most want to keep Obamacare

(Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)

Heritage Action, the activist wing of the conservative Heritage Foundation, is out with a new poll today that’s getting some favorable coverage in the mainstream political press. According to Heritage, the survey shows that the GOP shouldn’t fear a government shutdown over Obamacare defunding. But there’s a catch.

The background here is that a group of conservative senators, including Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Marco Rubio, are trying to push Republican leaders to demand that Congress defund Obamacare in upcoming appropriations battles , even if it means forcing the government to shut down. Heritage supports the effort, so it took the poll to try to steel the spines of Republican leaders.

“Americans — including 57 percent of independents in ten critical congressional districts — favor defunding Obamacare,” said Michael Needham, the CEO of Heritage Action. “House Republicans should be much more concerned with the fallout of failing to defund Obamacare than with the imaginary fallout of doing so.”

What Needham fails to mention, however, is that even this push poll that dramatically oversamples Republicans (more on that in a minute) finds respondents are more likely to say that the Affordable Care Act should be kept than scrapped — and that a plurality would blame Republicans if the government were to shut down.

Only 44.5 percent “oppose the health care law and think it should be repealed,” while 52 percent either support the law as is or have some concerns, but say they think implementation should move forward. And asked whom they would blame if “there was an impasse between president Obama and Congress on whether to continue to fund the health care law, and that impasse resulted in a partial government shutdown,” the top response (28 percent) was Republicans in Congress. The next option, Obama, got 21 percent of respondents.

As for Heritage’s sample, which NBC calls voters from “10 relatively competitive congressional districts,” and Heritage says represents “the American people” as a whole — not so much.


advertisement

Josh Dorner of the Center for American Progress Action Fund — Heritage Action’s ideological rival — cries foul. He sent over the partisan breakdown of each of the 10 districts and noted that every single one leans Republican:

o FL-2 Southerland R+5
o GA-12 Barrow R+9
o IL-18 Schock R+10
o NJ-7 Lance R+6
o NC-2 Ellmers R+11
o NC-7 McIntyre R+11
o OH-12 Tiberi R+8
o OR-2 Walden R+10
o UT-4 Matheson R+14
o WV-3 Rahall R+14

The poll even asked respondents directly for their party affiliation. Not surprisingly, there were almost 10 percentage points more Republicans (41.8 percent) than Democrats (33 percent). That looks even worse when you consider that more people identify as Democrats than Republicans nationwide, and by a margin of 7 percentage points, according to the latest Gallup survey. That means that Heritage’s poll is arguably oversampling Republicans by around 15 percent.

One could further take issue with a poll that asks respondents leading questions like, do you think Congress should “halt funding for the health care law before provisions take effect, to make sure they do not do more harm than good?”

And the key question of the survey — would you support a government shutdown to defund Obamacare? — is comically euphemistic, calling a hypothetical shutdown a “temporary slowdown in non-essential federal government operations, which still left all essential government services running.”

And yet, despite oversampling Republicans and asking misleading questions, the poll still finds that pluralities favor keeping Obamacare and that Republicans would bear the brunt of the public’s wrath if the government shuts down.

by on Aug. 15, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Replies (41-50):
12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Aug. 18, 2013 at 8:54 AM


Nice job at shutting down the mis-information of the OP's propaganda.


you rock

Quoting numbr1wmn:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/14/summertime-blues-polls-show-obamacare-support-eroding-amid-implementation/

As problems continue to pile up over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, summertime polls from Fox News, Gallup and Rasmussen signal that growing confusion over the complexities of the law, how it will be rolled out and how much it will cost is eroding public support.   

A majority of Americans say they believe the new health care law will increase their medical costs and taxes, according to an Aug. 8 Fox News poll. The survey found 57 percent of those polled felt the way ObamaCare was being rolled out was "a joke." 

Overall, 63 percent of voters believe that the 2010 health care law needs to be changed. That number is up from 58 percent of those asked the question in July 2012. 

The number of Republicans who think the law should be changed remained steady at 84 percent. According to the poll, more voters used negative terms to describe the health care overhaul -- with 39 percent calling it "disastrous" and 14 percent calling it "a step backwards." 



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/14/summertime-blues-polls-show-obamacare-support-eroding-amid-implementation/#ixzz2c8txUvms

Public Approval of Obama's Health Care Law

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample For/Favor Against/Oppose Spread
RCP Average 6/20 - 8/10 -- 39.5 51.3 Against/Oppose +11.8
Rasmussen Reports* 8/9 - 8/10 1000 LV 41 53 Against/Oppose +12
FOX News* 7/21 - 7/23 1017 RV 40 53 Against/Oppose +13
CBS News 7/18 - 7/22 1036 A 36 54 Against/Oppose +18
ABC News/Wash Post 7/18 - 7/21 1002 A 42 49 Against/Oppose +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/17 - 7/21 1000 A 34 47 Against/Oppose +13
Gallup 6/20 - 6/24 2048 A 44 52 Against/Oppose +8

All Public Approval of Obama's Health Care Law Polling Data

 



cjsbmom
by Lois Lane on Aug. 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

The shortage in trained staff (including nurses and doctors) has been going on in this country for well over two decades. It's not because of Obamacare. In fact, it started in 1997 when Congress capped the number of residency positions that were federally-supported. Medical school is expensive and time consuming and many people are not interested in making that kind of financial or time commitment. Who wants to go to school for over 8 years and be drowning in debt just to be a doctor? That is the real problem, and the AAMC agrees. Oh, and they also support the ACA. But I guess they don't know anything seeing as how they are doctors and all. 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Have you not been listening to doctors in the US who have stated this is what will happen with the implementation of Obamacare?  


Quoting cjsbmom:

I don't even see it. Can you give me a link to it please?

Also, I wanted to mention that part of the reason routine procedures are falling behind in Canada is because they have a shortage of doctors in that country. Fewer people are going into the field. They are choosing more lucrative work, or leaving  Canada to work elsewhere. 



12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Aug. 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM
1 mom liked this


WHY THE AMA ENDORSES OBAMACARE—BUT YOUR DOCTOR DOES NOT

 - ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, FORMER PRESIDENT

Dr. Lee Hieb began her career in medicine at age four, accompanying her father on house calls along the back roads of Iowa. She graduated from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in Rochester New York, and completed an Orthopaedic Residency in the US Navy. After serving as a general Orthopaedic Surgeon stationed with the Marine Corps, she returned to Rochester where she was the only woman to be appointed as the Louis A. Goldstein fellow of Spinal Surgery. Dr. Hieb has been in private practice for over 20 years, and this experience has led her to become an outspoken advocate for the free market solution to health care. Dr. Hieb has served on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, is immediate past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and a lifelong member of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. She currently divides her time between an Orthopaedic practice in Iowa, chicken raising and caring for her husband and two sons.

During the vice presidential debate after Paul Ryan accurately outlined the damaging economic effects of Obamacare (ironically named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Joe Biden retorted, “But the AMA has endorsed Obamacare!”  And it is true.  The American Medical Association, the most widely known group purportedly representing doctors in America has been firmly behind this egregious bit of expensive and health killing legislation. Why?

The answer, as in most cases, involves following the money. There was a time, up until the 1980’s, that the AMA made most of its revenue from physician dues. In those days, presumably, they cared about the issues that negatively affected physicians, and by extension, the practice of medicine and patient care. In 1963, when the AMA was not given equal time to rebut President Kennedy’s Madison Square Garden speech arguing for Medicare, the AMA rented the empty Garden, and then President Dr. Edward Annis made an impassioned televised plea, exhorting Americans to avoid the trap of socialized health care.

Today’s AMA is a different animal. This year, only 15 percent of practicing physicians are members, down from 75 percent in the 1950s. Between 2008 and 2010, membership declined by 5 percent. But, in spite of hemorrhaging members, the organization has done financially better than ever. Between 1987 and 1999, the organization was variably “in the red”, and never reported over $7.6 million in yearly profit, but, beginning in 2000, for twelve consecutive years the organization has consistently operated “in the black.” Reporting record net incomes of $39.8 million in 2005, and most recently $24.7 million profit in 2011.

Now, if this were a restaurant with diminishing customers and record returns, the Feds would investigate the owner– suspecting money laundering or drugs. So what is the AMA’s secret?  In the mid 1980’s, the AMA, in a brilliant business move, created a coding system that all doctors and hospitals required to bill the government or private insurance: the CPT codebook. And, as the codification of medicine required more and more paperwork, the AMA was more than happy to step in and supply electronic systems to help both the government and the doctors all at a price, of course.


Every time you visit your doctor, whether for a consultation, or to have a surgical procedure, the physician and hospital must consult the CPT and ICD-9 books to assign code numbers to that visit. Of course these codes change yearly (which guarantees ongoing purchasing), and become more complex (thereby guaranteeing increased pricing).  The new mandated electronic medical records systems which are bankrupting doctors, slowing patient care, and creating a whole new breed of serious medical error, are brought to you courtesy of this AMA/government partnership.

Worse yet, the AMA has become an arm—sometimes a strong-arm –of the government. Under the balanced budget act, there is a fixed pot of money for physician reimbursement. In this fixed pot scenario, if internists, for example, are to be paid more for their patient care, someone else—general surgeons say—must be paid less. Needless to say, everyone wants a seat at the table when the government money is doled out, and who is more knowledgeable to be in charge than…you guessed it– the AMA. Theoretically, all specialty areas of medicine have representation in this process, however, that is not always the case. According to the AMA rules, if a specialty society doesn’t maintain a certain level of AMA membership among its members it loses its seat on the bargaining committee. In other words, the AMA says, “Belong to us or you won’t get paid.”

The Gambino family bosses should take note of all this—the pressure tactics will look familiar, but even their consigliore haven’t figured out how to coopt the government into forcing people to buy their products.

Although a huge number of physicians have spoken out against Obamacare, have written the AMA, and have ultimately voted with their feet, when such a small percentage of AMA revenue comes from physicians’ dues, why should it care what physicians in practice think about Obamacare, or anything, for that matter?

Admittedly, there are physicians who are in favor of Obamacare, and ultimately a single party system.  By way of background, medical doctors were the largest group, by profession, to vote for Hitler in the 1932 election, so we don’t always make good decisions.

Some doctors who favor Obamacare are simply looking for simplification of their lives, not recognizing the serious ethical as well as financial consequences of being employees of the state machine. Some doctors are in specialties which particularly benefit from government largesse. Not all Pediatricians believe in government run health care, but many do. Thanks to government mandates they are paid for vaccinations, and through various aid programs, they are paid for “well child visits” –medical care that parents in a free market might not pay for.

And then there are a small committed group of true medical socialists such as Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) who believe people, left to themselves, are incapable of arranging for their own health care. He favors Obamacare as the first step to universal British style government health care. These doctors want the government to take control and provide medical care in a “rational way.” According to Dr. Immanuel (Lancet 2009, “The Disability Adjusted Life Year”) the fairest way to distribute health care is through his formula which can assign value to people’s lives. He can mathematically calculate whose life is “objectively less valuable” and thereby assign health care dollars away from that individual. If you are under two years old (I guess you are not a real person until age two in socialists’ eyes) or over sixty, have a terminal illness or disability, you are allotted no significant health care dollars. If you are in one of those groups, as many of us baby boomers now are, just kiss your ass goodbye, because in the brave new world of Emanuel you will not be able to opt out and buy your own health care—that would be unfair to those in the system.

There are, in fact, many medical organizations standing up against the government takeover of medicine.  The Association of American Physicians, a free market medical group fighting against socialized medicine since the 1943, is the only group to challenge Obamacare in the courts, and is pending appeal. Doctors for Patient Care is a newly formed organization whose raison d’etre is the overturning of Obamacare and ultimately all government interference in medicine. The American College of Surgeons, The American Academy of Dermatologists Association, the American Urologic Association, the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons, and 37 other professional state and local organizations have gone on record opposing Obamacare. Sadly, The AMA, like the German and Ontario Medical Associations before it, has become an agency of the federal government, not an advocate for patients or private practice physicians who are committed to the best care of their individual patients. So, yes, Joe—the AMA supported Obamacare, but  for your sake, I hope your doctor does not.

Quoting cjsbmom:

The shortage in trained staff (including nurses and doctors) has been going on in this country for well over two decades. It's not because of Obamacare. In fact, it started in 1997 when Congress capped the number of residency positions that were federally-supported. Medical school is expensive and time consuming and many people are not interested in making that kind of financial or time commitment. Who wants to go to school for over 8 years and be drowning in debt just to be a doctor? That is the real problem, and the AAMC agrees. Oh, and they also support the ACA. But I guess they don't know anything seeing as how they are doctors and all. 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Have you not been listening to doctors in the US who have stated this is what will happen with the implementation of Obamacare?  


Quoting cjsbmom:

I don't even see it. Can you give me a link to it please?

Also, I wanted to mention that part of the reason routine procedures are falling behind in Canada is because they have a shortage of doctors in that country. Fewer people are going into the field. They are choosing more lucrative work, or leaving  Canada to work elsewhere. 





cjsbmom
by Lois Lane on Aug. 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM

This is an opinion piece from a former president of that association. It's not a scholarly piece, but her opinion. There are plenty of stories out there and doctors' associations that support the ACA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/07/17/doctors-still-back-obamacares-individual-mandate-despite-emboldened-gop/

Quoting 12hellokitty:



WHY THE AMA ENDORSES OBAMACARE—BUT YOUR DOCTOR DOES NOT

 - ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, FORMER PRESIDENT

Dr. Lee Hieb began her career in medicine at age four, accompanying her father on house calls along the back roads of Iowa. She graduated from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in Rochester New York, and completed an Orthopaedic Residency in the US Navy. After serving as a general Orthopaedic Surgeon stationed with the Marine Corps, she returned to Rochester where she was the only woman to be appointed as the Louis A. Goldstein fellow of Spinal Surgery. Dr. Hieb has been in private practice for over 20 years, and this experience has led her to become an outspoken advocate for the free market solution to health care. Dr. Hieb has served on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, is immediate past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and a lifelong member of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. She currently divides her time between an Orthopaedic practice in Iowa, chicken raising and caring for her husband and two sons.

During the vice presidential debate after Paul Ryan accurately outlined the damaging economic effects of Obamacare (ironically named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Joe Biden retorted, “But the AMA has endorsed Obamacare!”  And it is true.  The American Medical Association, the most widely known group purportedly representing doctors in America has been firmly behind this egregious bit of expensive and health killing legislation. Why?

The answer, as in most cases, involves following the money. There was a time, up until the 1980’s, that the AMA made most of its revenue from physician dues. In those days, presumably, they cared about the issues that negatively affected physicians, and by extension, the practice of medicine and patient care. In 1963, when the AMA was not given equal time to rebut President Kennedy’s Madison Square Garden speech arguing for Medicare, the AMA rented the empty Garden, and then President Dr. Edward Annis made an impassioned televised plea, exhorting Americans to avoid the trap of socialized health care.

Today’s AMA is a different animal. This year, only 15 percent of practicing physicians are members, down from 75 percent in the 1950s. Between 2008 and 2010, membership declined by 5 percent. But, in spite of hemorrhaging members, the organization has done financially better than ever. Between 1987 and 1999, the organization was variably “in the red”, and never reported over $7.6 million in yearly profit, but, beginning in 2000, for twelve consecutive years the organization has consistently operated “in the black.” Reporting record net incomes of $39.8 million in 2005, and most recently $24.7 million profit in 2011.

Now, if this were a restaurant with diminishing customers and record returns, the Feds would investigate the owner– suspecting money laundering or drugs. So what is the AMA’s secret?  In the mid 1980’s, the AMA, in a brilliant business move, created a coding system that all doctors and hospitals required to bill the government or private insurance: the CPT codebook. And, as the codification of medicine required more and more paperwork, the AMA was more than happy to step in and supply electronic systems to help both the government and the doctors all at a price, of course.


Every time you visit your doctor, whether for a consultation, or to have a surgical procedure, the physician and hospital must consult the CPT and ICD-9 books to assign code numbers to that visit. Of course these codes change yearly (which guarantees ongoing purchasing), and become more complex (thereby guaranteeing increased pricing).  The new mandated electronic medical records systems which are bankrupting doctors, slowing patient care, and creating a whole new breed of serious medical error, are brought to you courtesy of this AMA/government partnership.

Worse yet, the AMA has become an arm—sometimes a strong-arm –of the government. Under the balanced budget act, there is a fixed pot of money for physician reimbursement. In this fixed pot scenario, if internists, for example, are to be paid more for their patient care, someone else—general surgeons say—must be paid less. Needless to say, everyone wants a seat at the table when the government money is doled out, and who is more knowledgeable to be in charge than…you guessed it– the AMA. Theoretically, all specialty areas of medicine have representation in this process, however, that is not always the case. According to the AMA rules, if a specialty society doesn’t maintain a certain level of AMA membership among its members it loses its seat on the bargaining committee. In other words, the AMA says, “Belong to us or you won’t get paid.”

The Gambino family bosses should take note of all this—the pressure tactics will look familiar, but even their consigliore haven’t figured out how to coopt the government into forcing people to buy their products.

Although a huge number of physicians have spoken out against Obamacare, have written the AMA, and have ultimately voted with their feet, when such a small percentage of AMA revenue comes from physicians’ dues, why should it care what physicians in practice think about Obamacare, or anything, for that matter?

Admittedly, there are physicians who are in favor of Obamacare, and ultimately a single party system.  By way of background, medical doctors were the largest group, by profession, to vote for Hitler in the 1932 election, so we don’t always make good decisions.

Some doctors who favor Obamacare are simply looking for simplification of their lives, not recognizing the serious ethical as well as financial consequences of being employees of the state machine. Some doctors are in specialties which particularly benefit from government largesse. Not all Pediatricians believe in government run health care, but many do. Thanks to government mandates they are paid for vaccinations, and through various aid programs, they are paid for “well child visits” –medical care that parents in a free market might not pay for.

And then there are a small committed group of true medical socialists such as Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) who believe people, left to themselves, are incapable of arranging for their own health care. He favors Obamacare as the first step to universal British style government health care. These doctors want the government to take control and provide medical care in a “rational way.” According to Dr. Immanuel (Lancet 2009, “The Disability Adjusted Life Year”) the fairest way to distribute health care is through his formula which can assign value to people’s lives. He can mathematically calculate whose life is “objectively less valuable” and thereby assign health care dollars away from that individual. If you are under two years old (I guess you are not a real person until age two in socialists’ eyes) or over sixty, have a terminal illness or disability, you are allotted no significant health care dollars. If you are in one of those groups, as many of us baby boomers now are, just kiss your ass goodbye, because in the brave new world of Emanuel you will not be able to opt out and buy your own health care—that would be unfair to those in the system.

There are, in fact, many medical organizations standing up against the government takeover of medicine.  The Association of American Physicians, a free market medical group fighting against socialized medicine since the 1943, is the only group to challenge Obamacare in the courts, and is pending appeal. Doctors for Patient Care is a newly formed organization whose raison d’etre is the overturning of Obamacare and ultimately all government interference in medicine. The American College of Surgeons, The American Academy of Dermatologists Association, the American Urologic Association, the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons, and 37 other professional state and local organizations have gone on record opposing Obamacare. Sadly, The AMA, like the German and Ontario Medical Associations before it, has become an agency of the federal government, not an advocate for patients or private practice physicians who are committed to the best care of their individual patients. So, yes, Joe—the AMA supported Obamacare, but  for your sake, I hope your doctor does not.

Quoting cjsbmom:

The shortage in trained staff (including nurses and doctors) has been going on in this country for well over two decades. It's not because of Obamacare. In fact, it started in 1997 when Congress capped the number of residency positions that were federally-supported. Medical school is expensive and time consuming and many people are not interested in making that kind of financial or time commitment. Who wants to go to school for over 8 years and be drowning in debt just to be a doctor? That is the real problem, and the AAMC agrees. Oh, and they also support the ACA. But I guess they don't know anything seeing as how they are doctors and all. 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Have you not been listening to doctors in the US who have stated this is what will happen with the implementation of Obamacare?  


Quoting cjsbmom:

I don't even see it. Can you give me a link to it please?

Also, I wanted to mention that part of the reason routine procedures are falling behind in Canada is because they have a shortage of doctors in that country. Fewer people are going into the field. They are choosing more lucrative work, or leaving  Canada to work elsewhere. 






grandmab125
by Gold Member on Aug. 18, 2013 at 11:10 PM

 You should probably read and comprehend your own links.  PFG no longer offers regular run of the mill health insurance plans.  They have a 'wellness', whatever that means, plan, and they offer plans that cover cancer, heart surgery and other specific types of health care......not a regular over all health insurance plan such as BC/BS, Aetna, Cigna, or any of the others.  You've heard of 'cancer insurance' plans, haven't you?

Quoting Della529:

 You should probably know - your link is from 2011 and says Principal Financial Group "late last year that they were leaving the health insurance business, impacting on some 840,000 insured.".

PFG continues in the health insurance to this day.  http://www.principal.com/grouplh/

Sounds like Rick Ungar, the author of the article, was wrong.

Quoting grandmab125:

 Once again, your friend is full of shit.  When Obamacare crumbles under its own weight, the gov't will come to the rescue with single payer.  You do know what single payer health care is, don't you?  Our money goes to the gov't, not insurance companies (they will cease to exist, or perhaps exist in a much smaller capacity as a co-insurance type thing for those who can afford it), and the gov't will be the insurer.

Read and learn:

More Proof That The American For-Profit Health Insurance Model Is ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/28/more-proof-that-the-american-for-profit-health-insurance-model-is-doomed/ - 110k -

 

Single-Payer Health Care Is Coming To America-Are We Ready ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/02/23/single-payer-health-care-is-coming-to-america-are-we-ready/ - 123k -

 

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the UK). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Quoting cjsbmom:

I'm not Canadian. My husband is. So it's not my country's citizens. 

And no, I'm not interested in informing my doctor friend about your beliefs on the ACA as if they were fact.  She works in the field every day and I value her opinion a lot more than someone who doesn't work in the industry. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 Well you doctor friend doesn't know what he/she is talking about.  It will definitely become rationed under Obamacare.  Obamacare has an 'advisory board' of non-medical hacks and political appointees who will be doing just that.  Hell the gov't already rations care to Medicare Patients.  And it's going to get worse, since Obama stole something like $716B from Medicare to help pay for Obamacare.

Inform your doctor friend, that Obamacare train wreck was set up to fail, so he can ride in on the white horse to save everyone with national/socialized health care.  You know, the kind where the gov't makes all of the decisions on health care.

Well, FYI, we don't like your system....long wait times and denial of services.  You can keep it.  And we'll keep treating your citizens who have the money to come here, where they don't have to wait 6 months for their elective surgeries.

Quoting cjsbmom:

If it's considered non-emergency, then yes, you wait until the emergencies are taken care of first. That's the way it should work, IMO. I was talking to a friend who is a doctor recently, and she was saying that the day is coming when healthcare here in the U.S. is rationed, and not because it's a universal healthcare system, but because that's how insurance companies will decide to increase their profits. 

Anyone who has an HMO will tell you that denial of services and long wait times already are the norm in this country. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 cjsbmom:

You don't know every thing.  Check out these links to info from Canadian sites:

OECD iLibrary: Statistics / Health at a Glance / 2011 / Waiting times

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html;jsessionid=as008die826bn.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html - 24k -

Surgery wait times in Canadagrowing longer: report - CTV News

http://www.ctvnews.ca/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-growing-longer-report-1.739055 - -

Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2012 ...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2012.pdf

The Canadian gov't considers it great if people get their non-emergency surgies within 182 days.....that's their noble (not) goal.

Surgical wait times not improving - Health - CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/03/19/wait-times-surgery.html -


 


 

 

 

grandma B

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Aug. 18, 2013 at 11:14 PM

Get a clue, woman, only 15% of the drs in this country

belong to the AMA.  Therefore, those doctors are not representative

of the majority of doctors in the US.

Quoting cjsbmom:

This is an opinion piece from a former president of that association. It's not a scholarly piece, but her opinion. There are plenty of stories out there and doctors' associations that support the ACA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/07/17/doctors-still-back-obamacares-individual-mandate-despite-emboldened-gop/

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

 

WHY THE AMA ENDORSES OBAMACARE—BUT YOUR DOCTOR DOES NOT

 - ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, FORMER PRESIDENT

Dr. Lee Hieb began her career in medicine at age four, accompanying her father on house calls along the back roads of Iowa. She graduated from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in Rochester New York, and completed an Orthopaedic Residency in the US Navy. After serving as a general Orthopaedic Surgeon stationed with the Marine Corps, she returned to Rochester where she was the only woman to be appointed as the Louis A. Goldstein fellow of Spinal Surgery. Dr. Hieb has been in private practice for over 20 years, and this experience has led her to become an outspoken advocate for the free market solution to health care. Dr. Hieb has served on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, is immediate past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and a lifelong member of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. She currently divides her time between an Orthopaedic practice in Iowa, chicken raising and caring for her husband and two sons.

During the vice presidential debate after Paul Ryan accurately outlined the damaging economic effects of Obamacare (ironically named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Joe Biden retorted, “But the AMA has endorsed Obamacare!”  And it is true.  The American Medical Association, the most widely known group purportedly representing doctors in America has been firmly behind this egregious bit of expensive and health killing legislation. Why?

The answer, as in most cases, involves following the money. There was a time, up until the 1980’s, that the AMA made most of its revenue from physician dues. In those days, presumably, they cared about the issues that negatively affected physicians, and by extension, the practice of medicine and patient care. In 1963, when the AMA was not given equal time to rebut President Kennedy’s Madison Square Garden speech arguing for Medicare, the AMA rented the empty Garden, and then President Dr. Edward Annis made an impassioned televised plea, exhorting Americans to avoid the trap of socialized health care.

Today’s AMA is a different animal. This year, only 15 percent of practicing physicians are members, down from 75 percent in the 1950s. Between 2008 and 2010, membership declined by 5 percent. But, in spite of hemorrhaging members, the organization has done financially better than ever. Between 1987 and 1999, the organization was variably “in the red”, and never reported over $7.6 million in yearly profit, but, beginning in 2000, for twelve consecutive years the organization has consistently operated “in the black.” Reporting record net incomes of $39.8 million in 2005, and most recently $24.7 million profit in 2011.

Now, if this were a restaurant with diminishing customers and record returns, the Feds would investigate the owner– suspecting money laundering or drugs. So what is the AMA’s secret?  In the mid 1980’s, the AMA, in a brilliant business move, created a coding system that all doctors and hospitals required to bill the government or private insurance: the CPT codebook. And, as the codification of medicine required more and more paperwork, the AMA was more than happy to step in and supply electronic systems to help both the government and the doctors all at a price, of course.


Every time you visit your doctor, whether for a consultation, or to have a surgical procedure, the physician and hospital must consult the CPT and ICD-9 books to assign code numbers to that visit. Of course these codes change yearly (which guarantees ongoing purchasing), and become more complex (thereby guaranteeing increased pricing).  The new mandated electronic medical records systems which are bankrupting doctors, slowing patient care, and creating a whole new breed of serious medical error, are brought to you courtesy of this AMA/government partnership.

Worse yet, the AMA has become an arm—sometimes a strong-arm –of the government. Under the balanced budget act, there is a fixed pot of money for physician reimbursement. In this fixed pot scenario, if internists, for example, are to be paid more for their patient care, someone else—general surgeons say—must be paid less. Needless to say, everyone wants a seat at the table when the government money is doled out, and who is more knowledgeable to be in charge than…you guessed it– the AMA. Theoretically, all specialty areas of medicine have representation in this process, however, that is not always the case. According to the AMA rules, if a specialty society doesn’t maintain a certain level of AMA membership among its members it loses its seat on the bargaining committee. In other words, the AMA says, “Belong to us or you won’t get paid.”

The Gambino family bosses should take note of all this—the pressure tactics will look familiar, but even their consigliore haven’t figured out how to coopt the government into forcing people to buy their products.

Although a huge number of physicians have spoken out against Obamacare, have written the AMA, and have ultimately voted with their feet, when such a small percentage of AMA revenue comes from physicians’ dues, why should it care what physicians in practice think about Obamacare, or anything, for that matter?

Admittedly, there are physicians who are in favor of Obamacare, and ultimately a single party system.  By way of background, medical doctors were the largest group, by profession, to vote for Hitler in the 1932 election, so we don’t always make good decisions.

Some doctors who favor Obamacare are simply looking for simplification of their lives, not recognizing the serious ethical as well as financial consequences of being employees of the state machine. Some doctors are in specialties which particularly benefit from government largesse. Not all Pediatricians believe in government run health care, but many do. Thanks to government mandates they are paid for vaccinations, and through various aid programs, they are paid for “well child visits” –medical care that parents in a free market might not pay for.

And then there are a small committed group of true medical socialists such as Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) who believe people, left to themselves, are incapable of arranging for their own health care. He favors Obamacare as the first step to universal British style government health care. These doctors want the government to take control and provide medical care in a “rational way.” According to Dr. Immanuel (Lancet 2009, “The Disability Adjusted Life Year”) the fairest way to distribute health care is through his formula which can assign value to people’s lives. He can mathematically calculate whose life is “objectively less valuable” and thereby assign health care dollars away from that individual. If you are under two years old (I guess you are not a real person until age two in socialists’ eyes) or over sixty, have a terminal illness or disability, you are allotted no significant health care dollars. If you are in one of those groups, as many of us baby boomers now are, just kiss your ass goodbye, because in the brave new world of Emanuel you will not be able to opt out and buy your own health care—that would be unfair to those in the system.

There are, in fact, many medical organizations standing up against the government takeover of medicine.  The Association of American Physicians, a free market medical group fighting against socialized medicine since the 1943, is the only group to challenge Obamacare in the courts, and is pending appeal. Doctors for Patient Care is a newly formed organization whose raison d’etre is the overturning of Obamacare and ultimately all government interference in medicine. The American College of Surgeons, The American Academy of Dermatologists Association, the American Urologic Association, the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons, and 37 other professional state and local organizations have gone on record opposing Obamacare. Sadly, The AMA, like the German and Ontario Medical Associations before it, has become an agency of the federal government, not an advocate for patients or private practice physicians who are committed to the best care of their individual patients. So, yes, Joe—the AMA supported Obamacare, but  for your sake, I hope your doctor does not.

Quoting cjsbmom:

The shortage in trained staff (including nurses and doctors) has been going on in this country for well over two decades. It's not because of Obamacare. In fact, it started in 1997 when Congress capped the number of residency positions that were federally-supported. Medical school is expensive and time consuming and many people are not interested in making that kind of financial or time commitment. Who wants to go to school for over 8 years and be drowning in debt just to be a doctor? That is the real problem, and the AAMC agrees. Oh, and they also support the ACA. But I guess they don't know anything seeing as how they are doctors and all. 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Have you not been listening to doctors in the US who have stated this is what will happen with the implementation of Obamacare?  

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

I don't even see it. Can you give me a link to it please?

Also, I wanted to mention that part of the reason routine procedures are falling behind in Canada is because they have a shortage of doctors in that country. Fewer people are going into the field. They are choosing more lucrative work, or leaving  Canada to work elsewhere. 



 

 


 

grandma B

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Aug. 18, 2013 at 11:26 PM

 And just where are your scholarly pieces?  LMAO

Read and learn:

What Do Actual Doctors Think About Obamacare Now? - Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/10/11/what-do-actual-doctors-think-about-obamacare-now/ - 82k -
Quoting cjsbmom:

This is an opinion piece from a former president of that association. It's not a scholarly piece, but her opinion. There are plenty of stories out there and doctors' associations that support the ACA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/07/17/doctors-still-back-obamacares-individual-mandate-despite-emboldened-gop/

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

 

WHY THE AMA ENDORSES OBAMACARE—BUT YOUR DOCTOR DOES NOT

 - ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, FORMER PRESIDENT

Dr. Lee Hieb began her career in medicine at age four, accompanying her father on house calls along the back roads of Iowa. She graduated from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in Rochester New York, and completed an Orthopaedic Residency in the US Navy. After serving as a general Orthopaedic Surgeon stationed with the Marine Corps, she returned to Rochester where she was the only woman to be appointed as the Louis A. Goldstein fellow of Spinal Surgery. Dr. Hieb has been in private practice for over 20 years, and this experience has led her to become an outspoken advocate for the free market solution to health care. Dr. Hieb has served on the board of the Arizona Medical Association, is immediate past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and a lifelong member of Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. She currently divides her time between an Orthopaedic practice in Iowa, chicken raising and caring for her husband and two sons.

During the vice presidential debate after Paul Ryan accurately outlined the damaging economic effects of Obamacare (ironically named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Joe Biden retorted, “But the AMA has endorsed Obamacare!”  And it is true.  The American Medical Association, the most widely known group purportedly representing doctors in America has been firmly behind this egregious bit of expensive and health killing legislation. Why?

The answer, as in most cases, involves following the money. There was a time, up until the 1980’s, that the AMA made most of its revenue from physician dues. In those days, presumably, they cared about the issues that negatively affected physicians, and by extension, the practice of medicine and patient care. In 1963, when the AMA was not given equal time to rebut President Kennedy’s Madison Square Garden speech arguing for Medicare, the AMA rented the empty Garden, and then President Dr. Edward Annis made an impassioned televised plea, exhorting Americans to avoid the trap of socialized health care.

Today’s AMA is a different animal. This year, only 15 percent of practicing physicians are members, down from 75 percent in the 1950s. Between 2008 and 2010, membership declined by 5 percent. But, in spite of hemorrhaging members, the organization has done financially better than ever. Between 1987 and 1999, the organization was variably “in the red”, and never reported over $7.6 million in yearly profit, but, beginning in 2000, for twelve consecutive years the organization has consistently operated “in the black.” Reporting record net incomes of $39.8 million in 2005, and most recently $24.7 million profit in 2011.

Now, if this were a restaurant with diminishing customers and record returns, the Feds would investigate the owner– suspecting money laundering or drugs. So what is the AMA’s secret?  In the mid 1980’s, the AMA, in a brilliant business move, created a coding system that all doctors and hospitals required to bill the government or private insurance: the CPT codebook. And, as the codification of medicine required more and more paperwork, the AMA was more than happy to step in and supply electronic systems to help both the government and the doctors all at a price, of course.


Every time you visit your doctor, whether for a consultation, or to have a surgical procedure, the physician and hospital must consult the CPT and ICD-9 books to assign code numbers to that visit. Of course these codes change yearly (which guarantees ongoing purchasing), and become more complex (thereby guaranteeing increased pricing).  The new mandated electronic medical records systems which are bankrupting doctors, slowing patient care, and creating a whole new breed of serious medical error, are brought to you courtesy of this AMA/government partnership.

Worse yet, the AMA has become an arm—sometimes a strong-arm –of the government. Under the balanced budget act, there is a fixed pot of money for physician reimbursement. In this fixed pot scenario, if internists, for example, are to be paid more for their patient care, someone else—general surgeons say—must be paid less. Needless to say, everyone wants a seat at the table when the government money is doled out, and who is more knowledgeable to be in charge than…you guessed it– the AMA. Theoretically, all specialty areas of medicine have representation in this process, however, that is not always the case. According to the AMA rules, if a specialty society doesn’t maintain a certain level of AMA membership among its members it loses its seat on the bargaining committee. In other words, the AMA says, “Belong to us or you won’t get paid.”

The Gambino family bosses should take note of all this—the pressure tactics will look familiar, but even their consigliore haven’t figured out how to coopt the government into forcing people to buy their products.

Although a huge number of physicians have spoken out against Obamacare, have written the AMA, and have ultimately voted with their feet, when such a small percentage of AMA revenue comes from physicians’ dues, why should it care what physicians in practice think about Obamacare, or anything, for that matter?

Admittedly, there are physicians who are in favor of Obamacare, and ultimately a single party system.  By way of background, medical doctors were the largest group, by profession, to vote for Hitler in the 1932 election, so we don’t always make good decisions.

Some doctors who favor Obamacare are simply looking for simplification of their lives, not recognizing the serious ethical as well as financial consequences of being employees of the state machine. Some doctors are in specialties which particularly benefit from government largesse. Not all Pediatricians believe in government run health care, but many do. Thanks to government mandates they are paid for vaccinations, and through various aid programs, they are paid for “well child visits” –medical care that parents in a free market might not pay for.

And then there are a small committed group of true medical socialists such as Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) who believe people, left to themselves, are incapable of arranging for their own health care. He favors Obamacare as the first step to universal British style government health care. These doctors want the government to take control and provide medical care in a “rational way.” According to Dr. Immanuel (Lancet 2009, “The Disability Adjusted Life Year”) the fairest way to distribute health care is through his formula which can assign value to people’s lives. He can mathematically calculate whose life is “objectively less valuable” and thereby assign health care dollars away from that individual. If you are under two years old (I guess you are not a real person until age two in socialists’ eyes) or over sixty, have a terminal illness or disability, you are allotted no significant health care dollars. If you are in one of those groups, as many of us baby boomers now are, just kiss your ass goodbye, because in the brave new world of Emanuel you will not be able to opt out and buy your own health care—that would be unfair to those in the system.

There are, in fact, many medical organizations standing up against the government takeover of medicine.  The Association of American Physicians, a free market medical group fighting against socialized medicine since the 1943, is the only group to challenge Obamacare in the courts, and is pending appeal. Doctors for Patient Care is a newly formed organization whose raison d’etre is the overturning of Obamacare and ultimately all government interference in medicine. The American College of Surgeons, The American Academy of Dermatologists Association, the American Urologic Association, the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons, and 37 other professional state and local organizations have gone on record opposing Obamacare. Sadly, The AMA, like the German and Ontario Medical Associations before it, has become an agency of the federal government, not an advocate for patients or private practice physicians who are committed to the best care of their individual patients. So, yes, Joe—the AMA supported Obamacare, but  for your sake, I hope your doctor does not.

Quoting cjsbmom:

The shortage in trained staff (including nurses and doctors) has been going on in this country for well over two decades. It's not because of Obamacare. In fact, it started in 1997 when Congress capped the number of residency positions that were federally-supported. Medical school is expensive and time consuming and many people are not interested in making that kind of financial or time commitment. Who wants to go to school for over 8 years and be drowning in debt just to be a doctor? That is the real problem, and the AAMC agrees. Oh, and they also support the ACA. But I guess they don't know anything seeing as how they are doctors and all. 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Have you not been listening to doctors in the US who have stated this is what will happen with the implementation of Obamacare?  

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

I don't even see it. Can you give me a link to it please?

Also, I wanted to mention that part of the reason routine procedures are falling behind in Canada is because they have a shortage of doctors in that country. Fewer people are going into the field. They are choosing more lucrative work, or leaving  Canada to work elsewhere. 



 

 


 

grandma B

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Aug. 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM

 Once again, your reading comprehension is deplorable.  The AAMC is the association representing medical colleges and hospitals.  It is not an association for the doctors in this country.  Individual doctors do not belong to the AAMC.   So this 'association's' support of obamacare does not reflect what the doctors think. 

Quoting cjsbmom:

The shortage in trained staff (including nurses and doctors) has been going on in this country for well over two decades. It's not because of Obamacare. In fact, it started in 1997 when Congress capped the number of residency positions that were federally-supported. Medical school is expensive and time consuming and many people are not interested in making that kind of financial or time commitment. Who wants to go to school for over 8 years and be drowning in debt just to be a doctor? That is the real problem, and the AAMC agrees. Oh, and they also support the ACA. But I guess they don't know anything seeing as how they are doctors and all. 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Have you not been listening to doctors in the US who have stated this is what will happen with the implementation of Obamacare?  

 

Quoting cjsbmom:

I don't even see it. Can you give me a link to it please?

Also, I wanted to mention that part of the reason routine procedures are falling behind in Canada is because they have a shortage of doctors in that country. Fewer people are going into the field. They are choosing more lucrative work, or leaving  Canada to work elsewhere. 



 

grandma B

Friday
by HRH of MJ on Aug. 18, 2013 at 11:49 PM


Quoting cjsbmom:

If it's considered non-emergency, then yes, you wait until the emergencies are taken care of first. That's the way it should work, IMO. I was talking to a friend who is a doctor recently, and she was saying that the day is coming when healthcare here in the U.S. is rationed, and not because it's a universal healthcare system, but because that's how insurance companies will decide to increase their profits. 

Anyone who has an HMO will tell you that denial of services and long wait times already are the norm in this country. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 cjsbmom:

You don't know every thing.  Check out these links to info from Canadian sites:

OECD iLibrary: Statistics / Health at a Glance / 2011 / Waiting times

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html;jsessionid=as008die826bn.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html - 24k -

Surgery wait times in Canada growing longer: report - CTV News

http://www.ctvnews.ca/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-growing-longer-report-1.739055 - -

Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2012 ...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2012.pdf

The Canadian gov't considers it great if people get their non-emergency surgies within 182 days.....that's their noble (not) goal.

Surgical wait times not improving - Health - CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/03/19/wait-times-surgery.html -


I worked for a health ins company, HMO was our biggest seller. Every single scary story I have heard about UHC or Single Payer, already happens in HMO's and I left that company 10 years ago.

Constant premium spikes. Excessive waits for referrals, then waits for appointments once the referral is approved, claims denied for BS, claims circular filed, people dying waiting for approval of medically necessary treatments. Five years on the phones in Member Services with a majority of HMO calls.

I don't get the panic over the govt running our healthcare but the same people have no problem with private corporations deciding what treatments they can have depending on the corps bottom line. Makes absolutely no sense.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Aug. 18, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Here I will spell it out for you in bold letters.  There are two types

of single payer insurance.  Canada uses the gov't and private

for those who can afford it.  England is strictly run

by the gov't.  When Obamacare crumbles,

 they will push insurance companies out

 and it will be the gov't running the whole shebang.

Oh, and BTW, my articles were not from

conservative sources.  Forbes is certainly not right wing.

And now that you've had your little temper 

 tantrum, you can shove your advice where the sun

don't shine....as they say.

And I got it the first time you said your husband

 is the one from Canada.  Whoop-de-do. 

So, that makes you an expert on both Canada

 and the US?

The only one full of shit here is you.  Every comment

you made after this one, has been shot down by

others too. 

Quoting cjsbmom:

First off, since you seem to have a reading comprehension issue, let me type this slowly and in big letters to help you out. MY DH IS CANADIAN. HIS ENTIRE FAMILY LIVES IN CANADA. I MOST CERTAINLY DO UNDERSTAND WHAT A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS, SO YOU CAN STOP ASKING ME THAT QUESTION. You clearly are the one who doesn't understand what a single-payer healthcare system is. You just buy into the GOP rhetoric that is floating around and use it as fact when it doesn't represent the reality of true universal healthcare. 

Secondly, you may want to read your own link.  It's from 2011 and totally contradicts what you are saying if you look up the more recent studies/information about the examples the writer mentions there. The only person full of shit here is you. You spout off your personal opinion as if it's fact without ever having experienced the things of which you speak and then tell the rest of us we need to get a clue. The only one here who needs a clue is you. 

With universal healthcare, insurance companies will still exist. People will still have the option of buying private insurance. It just won't be required in order to receive medical benefits. How do you think those Canadians who come here for medical services pay for it? They use their private insurance. They also can use private insurance in their own country to move to the "front of the line" for elective or non-emergency services if they so choose. But it's at an additional cost to them to purchase that insurance coverage individually. You are the one who needs to research the facts. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 Once again, your friend is full of shit.  When Obamacare crumbles under its own weight, the gov't will come to the rescue with single payer.  You do know what single payer health care is, don't you?  Our money goes to the gov't, not insurance companies (they will cease to exist, or perhaps exist in a much smaller capacity as a co-insurance type thing for those who can afford it), and the gov't will be the insurer.

Read and learn:

More Proof That The American For-Profit Health Insurance Model Is ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/28/more-proof-that-the-american-for-profit-health-insurance-model-is-doomed/ - 110k -

 

Single-Payer Health Care Is Coming To America-Are We Ready ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/02/23/single-payer-health-care-is-coming-to-america-are-we-ready/ - 123k -

 

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1]Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the UK). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Quoting cjsbmom:

I'm not Canadian. My husband is. So it's not my country's citizens. 

And no, I'm not interested in informing my doctor friend about your beliefs on the ACA as if they were fact.  She works in the field every day and I value her opinion a lot more than someone who doesn't work in the industry. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 Well you doctor friend doesn't know what he/she is talking about.  It will definitely become rationed under Obamacare.  Obamacare has an 'advisory board' of non-medical hacks and political appointees who will be doing just that.  Hell the gov't already rations care to Medicare Patients.  And it's going to get worse, since Obama stole something like $716B from Medicare to help pay for Obamacare.

Inform your doctor friend, that Obamacare train wreck was set up to fail, so he can ride in on the white horse to save everyone with national/socialized health care.  You know, the kind where the gov't makes all of the decisions on health care.

Well, FYI, we don't like your system....long wait times and denial of services.  You can keep it.  And we'll keep treating your citizens who have the money to come here, where they don't have to wait 6 months for their elective surgeries.

Quoting cjsbmom:

If it's considered non-emergency, then yes, you wait until the emergencies are taken care of first. That's the way it should work, IMO. I was talking to a friend who is a doctor recently, and she was saying that the day is coming when healthcare here in the U.S. is rationed, and not because it's a universal healthcare system, but because that's how insurance companies will decide to increase their profits. 

Anyone who has an HMO will tell you that denial of services and long wait times already are the norm in this country. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 cjsbmom:

You don't know every thing.  Check out these links to info from Canadian sites:

OECD iLibrary: Statistics / Health at a Glance / 2011 / Waiting times

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html;jsessionid=as008die826bn.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html - 24k -

Surgery wait times in Canadagrowing longer: report - CTV News

http://www.ctvnews.ca/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-growing-longer-report-1.739055 - -

Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2012 ...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2012.pdf

The Canadian gov't considers it great if people get their non-emergency surgies within 182 days.....that's their noble (not) goal.

Surgical wait times not improving - Health - CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/03/19/wait-times-surgery.html -


 


 


 

grandma B

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)