USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Continuing the discussion:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/uninsured_change/ib_uninsured_change.pdf
Uninsured rate down 35%. This for a law that's been active for 2 years and which approx half the states (all conservative governed) refuse to expand Medicare keeping 5M people needlessly uninsured.
Costs are down. CBO estimates health care will cost govt 600Bn less than projected before ACA went into effect. Kaiser using a 75/25 approx split between economy and ACA, which means $150B in savings. Or using buster's link from the previous thread about 40-45Bn.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8175277/obamacare-cost-subsidies-budget
So I'll ask again to the non-knuckledragging conservatives out here (buster, Lynah, etc). By all independent accounts more people are insured. By all independent accounts the law is saving the govt money, from 40-150Bn just from the two estimates we've seen here.
What exactly is the problem?
Continuing the discussion:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/uninsured_change/ib_uninsured_change.pdf
Uninsured rate down 35%. This for a law that's been active for 2 years and which approx half the states (all conservative governed) refuse to expand Medicare keeping 5M people needlessly uninsured.
Costs are down. CBO estimates health care will cost govt 600Bn less than projected before ACA went into effect. Kaiser using a 75/25 approx split between economy and ACA, which means $150B in savings. Or using buster's link from the previous thread about 40-45Bn.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8175277/obamacare-cost-subsidies-budget
So I'll ask again to the non-knuckledragging conservatives out here (buster, Lynah, etc). By all independent accounts more people are insured. By all independent accounts the law is saving the govt money, from 40-150Bn just from the two estimates we've seen here.
What exactly is the problem?
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
You are not suggesting that the solution to a shortage of Health Care Providers is to have fewer insured are you?
You are not suggesting that the solution to a shortage of Health Care Providers is to have fewer insured are you?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
The solution is to eliminate the red tape. Doctors aren't practicing because of the amount of compliance bureaucracy they have to go through. Not to mention sue-happy attorneys.
The solution is to eliminate the red tape. Doctors aren't practicing because of the amount of compliance bureaucracy they have to go through. Not to mention sue-happy attorneys.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Don't hold your breath! Funny how its gone from 1) it won't work, to 2) it'll cost too much, to 3) you're only insuring people who got their plans cancelled, to 4) it'll work but it'll kill jobs, to 5) but if you can't find a doctor.
As you say, joey and Flaggy, lets see some citations please.
Don't hold your breath! Funny how its gone from 1) it won't work, to 2) it'll cost too much, to 3) you're only insuring people who got their plans cancelled, to 4) it'll work but it'll kill jobs, to 5) but if you can't find a doctor.
As you say, joey and Flaggy, lets see some citations please.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
No - the solution is more doctors and health professionals. Just the Act does not seem to be addressing that problem as well as tort reform.
And Rover - its Joe, not Joey. OK?
.DEATH PANELS!!!?????
No - the solution is more doctors and health professionals. Just the Act does not seem to be addressing that problem as well as tort reform.
And Rover - its Joe, not Joey. OK?
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Aren't most threads here? The trick is to remember that what we say here will not mean a hoot. After all, the Universe does not care.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Posts on here from a person who is semi-retired from the practice.
Posts on here from a person who is semi-retired from the practice.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
You said "doctors"...plural.
You said "doctors"...plural.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
And more than one poster have mentioned that.
And more than one poster have mentioned that.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
So if Rover and Scooby post about GOP death squads then I can reference that in my posts as if it were true....
So if Rover and Scooby post about GOP death squads then I can reference that in my posts as if it were true....
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Care to list them?
edit: or are you saying other posters have offered anecdotes of doctors they know doing the same? If so, this is totally rock-solid evidence--nothing more conclusive than "facts" created by an echo chamber.
Care to list them?
edit: or are you saying other posters have offered anecdotes of doctors they know doing the same? If so, this is totally rock-solid evidence--nothing more conclusive than "facts" created by an echo chamber.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
No, the people that have posted this are actual MDs. Not all of us go to cake major colleges.
Care to list them?
edit: or are you saying other posters have offered anecdotes of doctors they know doing the same? If so, this is totally rock-solid evidence--nothing more conclusive than "facts" created by an echo chamber.
No, the people that have posted this are actual MDs. Not all of us go to cake major colleges.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
No, obviously the solution is to pay doctors less per patient while increasing their paperwork requirements at the same time.
No, obviously the solution is to pay doctors less per patient while increasing their paperwork requirements at the same time.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Let me guess, you could be more specific, you're just choosing not to be.
I'm not sure what, exactly, you're getting at, but is sounds a bit...elitist.
Let me guess, you could be more specific, you're just choosing not to be.
I'm not sure what, exactly, you're getting at, but is sounds a bit...elitist.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
He's talking about DrDemento and busterman62. They're both MDs, and both towards the ends of their respective professional careers. They've both mentioned disliking the shift away from doctors making decisions with patients towards accountants and bureaucrats making decisions. One or both of them have stated that they think the ACA will cause more of our experienced physicians out the door sooner than they otherwise would choose to retire.Care to list them?
edit: or are you saying other posters have offered anecdotes of doctors they know doing the same? If so, this is totally rock-solid evidence--nothing more conclusive than "facts" created by an echo chamber.
- Status