That was pretty funny, I must admit!

The reason america doesn't like Obama right now is because americans are scared of government supposedly taking over their lives. They think by making health care public, the government is entering their personal lives. When America separated from Britain some 300 years ago, they left because of the idea of Britain's government controlling them. And now that health care is about to take one step closer to becoming free, some americans foolishly believe that this is the start of a communist take over. Sure the government is in your lives a bit more, but it's for the better. Canada has free health care, and things aren't bad at all in hospitals here. I've seen the silly american propaganda commercials where it shows americans telling you that "I've had 2 family members die from Canada's health care" and it is clear that these commercials are just a rediculous attempt to stop health care reform. Another fun fact - Canada has the 4th best health care system in the world, america is 36 on the list. I think Obama's health care reform is for the better.

Not going to argue here. America's health care system isn't all that great if you do not have the cash for it.

The only way to solve this problem is to increase the supply of healthcare - that means doctors and technology. Unless a bill can do that, it's just rearranging who gets access to these scarce resources.

 

The way to do this is to get the AMA out of it. No more licensure for doctors - people will choose their doctor based on reputation alone. We do this with nearly every other area of our lives, why not medicine? To argue that a medical license is necessary to be a good doctor is like saying all painters must have a license, or else they'll spill paint on your carpet and punch holes in your walls. A license isn't a magic piece of paper that bestows skills to its possessor - it is only a way for a cartel (the AMA) to limit supply, so they can prop up their members' salaries.

 

Get the doctors off the golf courses & boats, and back to work where they belong. In the early 1900's doctors were a dime-a-dozen.

^ this scares me.

You need a license to teach, to practice law, to DRIVE. Granted, requiring licensure doesn't stop there from being shitty doctors, teachers, lawyers and drivers. But the point of licensure (at least how I see it) is to ensure that certain requirements are met before someone enters a given profession or activity.

 

And to say people will choose their doctors based on reputation alone... what of new doctors who have not yet established a reputation?

 

and in the early 1900s doctors killed as many patients as they saved.

You're right about the golf course and boats, though, but I think that is really tied to things like pharmaceutical lobbies. THAT's what really needs to be done away with, in my opinion.

^ this scares me.

You need a license to teach, to practice law, to DRIVE. Granted, requiring licensure doesn't stop there from being shitty doctors, teachers, lawyers and drivers. But the point of licensure (at least how I see it) is to ensure that certain requirements are met before someone enters a given profession or activity.

 

And to say people will choose their doctors based on reputation alone... what of new doctors who have not yet established a reputation?

 

and in the early 1900s doctors killed as many patients as they saved.

You're right about the golf course and boats, though, but I think that is really tied to things like pharmaceutical lobbies. THAT's what really needs to be done away with, in my opinion.

 

Before they established a reputation, they'd obviously need recommendations from other doctors who they've worked with and studied under. Younger doctors would cater to the poor better, until they built up a good reputation. As they got older and gained more and more experience their work would be in higher demand, especially amongst the more wealthy, thus making themselves more money.

^I see your point, Josh, but that type of system really just caters to the wealthy and educated doesn't it? I mean, you'd have to have the time and means to research in order to find a good doctor. At least with doctors being required to carry a license, you have some level of assurance that they should be doing what they're doing.

 

I admit, I am able to take the time to research and find doctors that I think are best for my family. We've seen neurologists, cardiologists and hematologists that are great in their fields. BUT, I have good insurance, time to get referrals and recommendations and flexibility when it comes to scheduling appointments. Someone who works full-time, making minimum wage with crappy or no benefits would likely not ever get in to see the doctors my family has seen. Not because they'd be turned away, but because they wouldn't have the means to find them or to pay them.

 

I guess my big argument is, what good is having the amount of medical technology and expertise that we have in this country, if not every citizen has access to it?

^I see your point, Josh, but that type of system really just caters to the wealthy and educated doesn't it? I mean, you'd have to have the time and means to research in order to find a good doctor. At least with doctors being required to carry a license, you have some level of assurance that they should be doing what they're doing.

 

I admit, I am able to take the time to research and find doctors that I think are best for my family. We've seen neurologists, cardiologists and hematologists that are great in their fields. BUT, I have good insurance, time to get referrals and recommendations and flexibility when it comes to scheduling appointments. Someone who works full-time, making minimum wage with crappy or no benefits would likely not ever get in to see the doctors my family has seen. Not because they'd be turned away, but because they wouldn't have the means to find them or to pay them.

 

I guess my big argument is, what good is having the amount of medical technology and expertise that we have in this country, if not every citizen has access to it?

 

Of course it caters to the wealthy, but it also gives the poor a better option than what they have now. Health care is a service, just like lawn mowing or delivering pizzas. No one is entitled to it; it's not a "right". The only rights people have are to their own lives, property, and freedom to do as they please. This system would help the poor, rather than allow them to leech off of the rest of society.

I guess my big argument is, what good is having the amount of medical technology and expertise that we have in this country, if not every citizen has access to it?

 

Because there's a limited supply of it.

 

It would be great if everyone in the country could have a butler, as well. But there are a limited number of butlers. And landscapers, and gardeners, etc.

 

The government can only shuffle deck chairs on the Titanic. It can't keep the ship from sinking.

 

The AMA is a monopoly on doctors, which limits competition and supply.

The reason america doesn't like Obama right now is because americans are scared of government supposedly taking over their lives. They think by making health care public, the government is entering their personal lives. When America separated from Britain some 300 years ago, they left because of the idea of Britain's government controlling them. And now that health care is about to take one step closer to becoming free, some americans foolishly believe that this is the start of a communist take over. Sure the government is in your lives a bit more, but it's for the better. Canada has free health care, and things aren't bad at all in hospitals here. I've seen the silly american propaganda commercials where it shows americans telling you that "I've had 2 family members die from Canada's health care" and it is clear that these commercials are just a rediculous attempt to stop health care reform. Another fun fact - Canada has the 4th best health care system in the world, america is 36 on the list. I think Obama's health care reform is for the better.

 

 

Canada's former chief of their health-care system disagrees with you, he's been speaking out about the problems of the Canadian system.

 

There are thousands of cases of people having to come to America to get life saving medicine that they couldn't get in time in Canada.

 

Anyone who has studied history and economics is rightfuly scared of the government getting more power and control.

I love how TyM called me uneducated, then when I called out his elementary grammar mistakes, he was unable to recognize my obvious sarcasm :laugh1:

Of course it caters to the wealthy, but it also gives the poor a better option than what they have now. Health care is a service, just like lawn mowing or delivering pizzas. No one is entitled to it; it's not a "right". The only rights people have are to their own lives, property, and freedom to do as they please. This system would help the poor, rather than allow them to leech off of the rest of society.

I disagree. I don't think that because someone is born into poverty they should be denied basic healthcare. We don't live isolated from each other. We are a community, and as such, I believe we need to step in when needed to help others. I DO NOT believe that it's ok for people to leech off the rest of society. There are many, many problems with many, many social welfare programs, but I don't believe the solution is to get rid of them all.

 

Because there's a limited supply of it.

 

It would be great if everyone in the country could have a butler, as well. But there are a limited number of butlers. And landscapers, and gardeners, etc.

 

The government can only shuffle deck chairs on the Titanic. It can't keep the ship from sinking.

 

The AMA is a monopoly on doctors, which limits competition and supply.

 

Let's start with it would be great if everyone in the country could have 3 meals a day, nevermind a butler or gardener.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the AMA also strip doctors of licenses when they're found to be negligent (or worse). Without regulation, what would stop a doctor from commiting malpractice in one state, then picking up and moving to another and doing the same thing?

many social welfare programs, but I don't believe the solution is to get rid of them all

 

They do nothing but create slaves. Welfare programs create people who are depended upon the government, thus less likely to help themselves. It sounds good, but most of the programs hurt the people. Kinda like give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a year.

 

Like in 3rd world countries I support charities that don't hand out money and create dependent people but build up peoples skills and independence.

 

Without regulation, what would stop a doctor from commiting malpractice in one state, then picking up and moving to another and doing the same thing?

 

I was wondering this one too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the AMA also strip doctors of licenses when they're found to be negligent (or worse). Without regulation, what would stop a doctor from commiting malpractice in one state, then picking up and moving to another and doing the same thing?

 

Put on your thinking cap.

 

If the possibility for malpractice exists in the marketplace for doctors, don't you think most people would fear it? And wouldn't they figure out a way to follow a doctor's reputation and research his history? Maybe something along the lines of a credit score, which follows you wherever you go in the world - but for doctors. And if a doctor chooses to not be a part of it, well, they either wouldn't get very much business, or they'd have to charge an extremely low fee.

 

But a doctor who appears out of the blue and sets up shop in your neighborhood won't be getting the customers the established guy gets.

 

The answer to this question was simple. People who doubt natural order just don't have very much imagination.

People understand it will add to a deficit that already is going to cause a lot of damage. Our government can't run our other programs they're all broke.

People are just being real, government just took over major auto makers, banks, wall st and now wants to take over even more after its failed with most its programs and is broke.

 

It's not "right wing", a lot of these people are independents who don't believe Obama's lies, he cannot back up his claims, non partisan groups have said he was wrong on many of his key points last night.

 

Like I said before, even if the government could run a NHS well we simply are too broke to afford it.

 

Sorry but it won't be an NHS. And anyway when Britain set up the NHS in 1948, the country was bankrupt after 6 years fighting the Nazis. I would never recommend an NHS for the US anyway because it's a completely different system in the US and remember the NHS was set up in the UK during a time where the poor were dying in one room bedsits.

I believe, that if you work any job, you should be paid a real living wage. Minimum wage in this country is a joke. People would be better able to take care of themselves if they made money they could truly live off of.

I believe, that if you work any job, you should be paid a real living wage. Minimum wage in this country is a joke. People would be better able to take care of themselves if they made money they could truly live off of.

 

I agree, if we didn't have high constant inflation, people could afford more. The problem with Keynesian socialism which we have now, is to increase wages they use inflation, but inflation rises faster than wages, thus the average person loses out. Real wages have not kept up with inflation, which helped lead to so many people going into debt and now not being able to pay it off.

 

Simply raising wages hurts the person because of inflation. However you bring the cost of everything down(deflation) you help the average person. If you need 40,000 a year to live but it cost 42,000 you lose out and go into debt, but if prices decrease instead of just a pay raise, say you only need 38,000 next year you gain some extra money without a "raise".

Wow Nick, great post. Entirely agree. How are you on this rainy saturday.