• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

ObamaCare and me By Zane F Pollard, MD

Status
Not open for further replies.

mike17l

Self-Admitted Duckoholic
Just what one MD thinks about a complete overhaul and movement towards a Canadian/British style system.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obamacare_and_me.html

August 06, 2009
ObamaCare and me
By Zane F Pollard, MD
I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective of a doctor.

First off, the government has involved very few of us physicians in the healthcare debate. While the American Medical Association has come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.

I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list.

Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.

Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list. Get the point -- rationing of care.

Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.

Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.

Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.

Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a lark. I have been told -- but of course there is no healthcare bill that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery.

I spent two year in the US Navy during the Viet Nam war and was well treated by the military. There was tremendous rationing of care and we were told specifically what things the military personnel and their dependents could have and which things they could not have. While I was in Viet Nam, my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. She went home and went to her family's private internist in Beverly Hills. While it was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of care.

For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in Britain face rationing of care in that there is an eight month wait for cataract surgery, 11 for hernia and the same for disc and total hip The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.

While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have seen this sort of lowering of fees.

But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came to Atlanta, there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500 for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific reputation and in fact I had my mother's bilateral cataracts operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has 20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee.

However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that does Medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate ( now $500) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will not be able to go to the head of the line under this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.

I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years).A neurosurgeon spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore.

We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also.This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in America.

The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.

Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state. I certainly could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian conditions.

One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for the past 15 years that somewhere between 49 and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding.

The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I have now trained 35 fellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago -- she was head and heels above all others I have trained. She now practices only 3 days a week.

Background: Dr. Zane F. Pollard

I did my undergraduate work at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. I graduated Tulane University medical School Alpha Omega Alpha ( medical school's top 10% of graduating class). Internship at the Univ. of Southern California in Los Angeles, one year of General surgery residency at the U. of California in San Francisco. Two years in the US Navy. Residency in Ophthalmology at the U.of S. California in Los Angeles, fellowship in pediatric Ophthalmology at the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia. In practice with Eye Consultants of Atlanta for the past 35 years. Published 90 papers in peer reviewed Scientific Ophthalmology Journals. Member of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Ophthalmological Society. Board certified in Ophthalmology.
 
Hmm...so I should use the letter of a single doctor in a single town, and weight it more heavily than an elected board of directors(AMA), and the recent poll which showed a distinct majority of physicians across the country in support of the plan? Nah...I'd rather listen to the majority, than a single doctor with a single point of view.

Thanks, though. I appreciate that this wasn't remotely a partisan attempt to, yet again, instill fear and disgust with very little in the way of solid evidence as support...:rolleyes:
 
Hmm...so I should use the letter of a single doctor in a single town, and weight it more heavily than an elected board of directors(AMA), and the recent poll which showed a distinct majority of physicians across the country in support of the plan? Nah...I'd rather listen to the majority, than a single doctor with a single point of view.

Thanks, though. I appreciate that this wasn't remotely a partisan attempt to, yet again, instill fear and disgust with very little in the way of solid evidence as support...:rolleyes:

If this was the case then there wouldn't even be a debate. Remember most of America has health insurance and most insurance cases DO get approved. So majorities only count when needed for an argument. Plus, what the physician said about the AMA is true, it doesn't even represent 1/5th of healthcare workers in the nation. As for the recent poll, I'd be interested to see the actual findings behind the poll and who conducted it. I don't remember that article very well to be honest.
 
Also try to remember that the healthcare bill comnig before congress doesn't have anything to do with Medicaid, which this letter repeatedly referances, or Medicaid aptients which this letter repeatedly referances.

It also say very little more than a whole bunch of personalaccolades for the author. I don't see a whole lot of factual evidence in the letter...I see stories of days gone by, and personal tales of triumph over adversity. Big Deal. Does he want a medal for his actions, or people to take his opinion on the bill seriously?

For example:
...We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also.This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in America...
This is blatantly and patently untrue. MOST of the uninsured people in the US make too much money to qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. In order to qualify for the programs this doctor uses as a reason against the initiative...I would have to be completely unemployed, or working only 15 hours a week.

You might ask how I can be so sure, and I'll tell you. I make $1,000 a month. I pay $350 in rent, $200 in utilities, $250 in food...roughly. That leaves me roughly $200 a month to put gas in my car, feed my snakes, do my laundry, pay my car insurance, and blablabla. This is TOO MUCH to qualify for Medicaid. My income is too high to qualify. Ain't that a kick in the pants?

Sp other than the obviously false claims this doctor makes with no support, the rest of the entire letter amounts to little more than bragging about his personal, vested interest in his poor, poor patients, and how horrible it is to be him because of all he is forced to do for his patients. Really...it's a long winded sob-story, not a legitimate listing of facts and figures associated with the bill.

I don't mind opinions when they are treated as such. But when a single opinion, with very little substance and no founding is placed on high as an example to be used against something that is actually recommended by the majority of his peers...I'll pass. You can believe all the garbage you want. That's you're right. I'll take substantive evidence and my own experiences over the word of a physician in denial any day of the week...
 
Do you understand a national health plan will mimic what medicare and medicaid recipients receive now except unlike these programs it will be even more underfunded? Health Care Administration is my field in which I have a full understanding of so I will not bother to argue with anyone not in the field. My 2 cents is people need health care though it is not a necissity in the sense food and water is- it is still an important element in anyones long term well being. However, do I want free health care KNOWING the quality of the care I receive is substandard? Hell no!!! Another important element I haven't seen anyone bring up is health reimbursement. Lets explain how that works. HCO's (health care organizations) are contracted by MCO's (managed care organizations) to provide their clients with health care. The MCO establishes the rates they will reimburse the HCO for either individual or bundled services. Hospitals, long term care centers, and outpatient centers "usually" are paid bundled rates, and physicians and specialists paid individual rates based on the medical code billed for a procedure or service. The MCO tells the HCO what services and procedures they cover for specific populations based on age, medical necessity, severity, and comorbidity some needing approval and others that do not like physicals and emergency services. Doctors already in this sense have little control over the services they perform and how much they can get paid. They either agree to the terms and accept the preset reimbursement.....or lose patients so they really have no choice. When you look at what a physician pays for malpractice insurance, their administrative expenses, and the actual costs to provide care and perform precedures they net very little especially accounting for the risk of being sued. However, in fairness the MCO has to underwrite all these policies they get an average of $300 a month for and when patients need their health care you can bet the MCO loses money too- it is all the payments they receive for those who hardly ever use their policies that keeps them afloat. So now the government wants to break their own anti-trust laws and be the main underwriter of insurance policies, but since we won't be paying for it directly how will they afford to cover major illness, accidents, and acute disease? We will pay higher taxes, but that won't be enough, we will use government funds, but theres never enough of those just look at medicare and medicaid now, so where is this money going to come from? You see the big government MCO will offer even lower reimbursements so its cheaper for them to underwrite care and since the majority of people will not keep their private inurance plans HCO's will be forced to accept these patients on our national health plan or go out of business. However, the HCO's administrative expenses and cost to give the same care will not be reduced nor will their malpractice insurance be lowered. So now HCO's are being asked to pay the same to run their business and except less money, but thats not quite possible either because if done this way bankruptcy would be only months away, and thats where health care rationing comes in. These doctors will have to perform less services and procedures a month to cover their expenses to stay in business. We won't need any less care, but we'll get it in the form of having to wait months, have the cheaper option given to us, or just not have it not covered at all. So quality and accessibility can not be cured with a national health plan, but instead made worse. This is the problem with every government run MCO all over the world no matter how much more expensive health care is here- other countries where services are cheaper still can't fund their own programs effciently. Other countries also can not afford to do the R&D our country does, can't afford newer and more progressive medications, or cutting edge noninvasive surgeries in the numbers we can because they can not afford enough surgical and diagnostic equipment to cover need. CARE IS RATIONED IN PUBLIC HEALTH CARE because it has to be and I don't want the cheapest route taken or a 6 month wait when its my children or self's quality of life at stake.
 
Do you understand a national health plan will mimic what medicare and medicaid recipients receive now except unlike these programs it will be even more underfunded? Health Care Administration is my field in which I have a full understanding of so I will not bother to argue with anyone not in the field. My 2 cents is people need health care though it is not a necissity in the sense food and water is- it is still an important element in anyones long term well being. However, do I want free health care KNOWING the quality of the care I receive is substandard? Hell no!!! Another important element I haven't seen anyone bring up is health reimbursement. Lets explain how that works. HCO's (health care organizations) are contracted by MCO's (managed care organizations) to provide their clients with health care. The MCO establishes the rates they will reimburse the HCO for either individual or bundled services. Hospitals, long term care centers, and outpatient centers "usually" are paid bundled rates, and physicians and specialists paid individual rates based on the medical code billed for a procedure or service. The MCO tells the HCO what services and procedures they cover for specific populations based on age, medical necessity, severity, and comorbidity some needing approval and others that do not like physicals and emergency services. Doctors already in this sense have little control over the services they perform and how much they can get paid. They either agree to the terms and accept the preset reimbursement.....or lose patients so they really have no choice. When you look at what a physician pays for malpractice insurance, their administrative expenses, and the actual costs to provide care and perform precedures they net very little especially accounting for the risk of being sued. However, in fairness the MCO has to underwrite all these policies they get an average of $300 a month for and when patients need their health care you can bet the MCO loses money too- it is all the payments they receive for those who hardly ever use their policies that keeps them afloat. So now the government wants to break their own anti-trust laws and be the main underwriter of insurance policies, but since we won't be paying for it directly how will they afford to cover major illness, accidents, and acute disease? We will pay higher taxes, but that won't be enough, we will use government funds, but theres never enough of those just look at medicare and medicaid now, so where is this money going to come from? You see the big government MCO will offer even lower reimbursements so its cheaper for them to underwrite care and since the majority of people will not keep their private inurance plans HCO's will be forced to accept these patients on our national health plan or go out of business. However, the HCO's administrative expenses and cost to give the same care will not be reduced nor will their malpractice insurance be lowered. So now HCO's are being asked to pay the same to run their business and except less money, but thats not quite possible either because if done this way bankruptcy would be only months away, and thats where health care rationing comes in. These doctors will have to perform less services and procedures a month to cover their expenses to stay in business. We won't need any less care, but we'll get it in the form of having to wait months, have the cheaper option given to us, or just not have it not covered at all. So quality and accessibility can not be cured with a national health plan, but instead made worse. This is the problem with every government run MCO all over the world no matter how much more expensive health care is here- other countries where services are cheaper still can't fund their own programs effciently. Other countries also can not afford to do the R&D our country does, can't afford newer and more progressive medications, or cutting edge noninvasive surgeries in the numbers we can because they can not afford enough surgical and diagnostic equipment to cover need. CARE IS RATIONED IN PUBLIC HEALTH CARE because it has to be and I don't want the cheapest route taken or a 6 month wait when its my children or self's quality of life at stake.

This is a very well written and incredibly well thought out post. Only has one problem...

It is all based on unfounded assumption at this point. You are assuming everything you wrote based on the primary assumption that there is no other option than to essentially expand the Medicaid coverage for all people.

Since the bill is still being written, argued, re-written, argued some more, and re-written again...you have no way of knowing with anymore certainty than my 5 year old how the final bill will be passed and instituted.

To debate the validity of a bill based on how it will work, whena final bill has yet to be written, and presume all this negative response is very, VERY bold.

I find it slightly odd that, even though you are "in the business", you are one of only about 38% "in the business" that is opposed to this... THAT seems odd to me...
 
Oh, and just for the record...CNN News reported on the radio this morning that currently there is NO PUBLIC OPTION in the bill.

You were saying?
 
No public option....define public? If the government is going to be our countries MCO they need money. So without rationing health care services where is this money coming from?

And Chris remember what a statistic really is. Believe me health care professionals are not excited about this bill. I am sure some are not opposed don't get me wrong but to say 62% of professionals support this unfinished bill is silly and I think you know that. Who published this information and how was the number derived?

My post explains how health care the industry works and is not an assumption it is how providers are reimbursed period. Do you think health care costs will become cheaper under this bill and if so how will our government make this happen as they have no control over how much equipment and materials cost to perform procedures? This program can not fund our countries population adequately without compromising quality of care and expedient access and I clearly explained why above in my post. I feel health care is important and know our currnt system has a lot to be desired, but why is it people who can't afford it now think they will not suffer the same financial loses when the government regulates it?
 
No public option....define public? If the government is going to be our countries MCO they need money. So without rationing health care services where is this money coming from?

And Chris remember what a statistic really is. Believe me health care professionals are not excited about this bill. I am sure some are not opposed don't get me wrong but to say 62% of professionals support this unfinished bill is silly and I think you know that. Who published this information and how was the number derived?

My post explains how health care the industry works and is not an assumption it is how providers are reimbursed period. Do you think health care costs will become cheaper under this bill and if so how will our government make this happen as they have no control over how much equipment and materials cost to perform procedures? This program can not fund our countries population adequately without compromising quality of care and expedient access and I clearly explained why above in my post. I feel health care is important and know our currnt system has a lot to be desired, but why is it people who can't afford it now think they will not suffer the same financial loses when the government regulates it?

I beg to differ...but you stated several opinions above that weer predictions of how it "must" work, and frankly...you have no idea how the new bill will work anymore than I do or anyone else. You don't have to be in the business to know that they haven't finished writing the bill yet...which means you cannot predict with any amount of certainty how it "will work".

What I read in your original post was a lot of ranting about how things currently work, and a lot of presupposing how things are going to work. Those suppositions are where your argument fails, because you cannot know, definitively, anything about how an unwritten bill is going to work. By way of logic, that means that you cannot know that it will be the disaster that you predict.

It boils down to someone who has been scared into believing that it can't possibly work, and really having nothing upon which to base those fears other than conjecture and opinion.

Believe me...if the bill passes and IS the huge failure that you predict it will be, I will be standing right next to you shaking my fist in the air, and screaming for revocation of the bill. But I am, at the very least, willing to allow it to actually be written before I start condemning it. Then again...I'm a liberal, pinko-commie, bleeding heart hippie...

And my percentage quoted above came from an msnbc poll I saw on TV two nights ago. You can thrash any news agency you want, and call BS all you want. It's a legitimate "news" source in as much as any network is, and a great deal more so than several others. The fact that it leans left and supports liberal causes doesn't change that.
 
I'm a lefty myself, but you haven't answered one of my valid questions. Health care is not free like food for example. When people get food stamps they get a RATIONED amount because the government can't afford to feed even the few people who receive these benefits an infinite dollar amount to be used on food per month. So instead they tell a person based on their income and size of family how much per month they will allot them for food expenses and any other food needs must still be covered by the family. Back to health care...if the government is going to releae funds for a program to pay for health care expenses they can only release a RATIONED amount per person because they do not have infinite funds. If my, yours, or anyone elses health care needs exceed this RATIONED amount either we don't get the care, or we go broke trying kinda like it already is.

I am not predicitng how the health plan will work exactly, but I am sure the government can not afford to insure America since they can't afford any of their other programs that get cut backs each year like Medicare and Medicaid.
 
And Chris remember what a statistic really is. Believe me health care professionals are not excited about this bill.
And who, pray tell, elected you as spokesperson for all of the health care professionals?

I am sure some are not opposed don't get me wrong but to say 62% of professionals support this unfinished bill is silly and I think you know that. Who published this information and how was the number derived?
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - the largest philanthropic organization devoted to health care - performed the study. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine two days ago.

And to be fair - the study polled physicians.....Medical Doctors...2,130 of them, to be exact, which if I recall correctly, yields a "margin of error" of about +/- 4 percent. Furthermore, it precludes the generalized "Health Care Professionals" which is so abstract that it could mean RNs, phlebotomists, insurance claims examiners, pharmacy technicians, ultrasound machine operators, and insurance company payroll clerks.

Here's the link.

So, who's looking silly now? (I think you know that.)


Dale

(ps - it's actually 63%, not 62%....and if you include the 10% of physicians who want a complete single payer system, that total comes to almost 3/4ths of the doctors sampled in the poll. But hey, what do doctors know about health care delivery, anyhow, am I right?) :rolleyes:
 
Dale, I never stated I was a spokesperson for ALL health care professionals opinions on health care. What I am is someone who is around health care professionals all day and have yet to find one excited about this program though I did say I am sure their are supporters.

Onto your statistics. 63% of 2,130 physicians polled said they support this bill in "some" fashion. You understand statistics so knowing the type of physician, where they practice, and specifically what kind of practices do they run is essential here. Are they doctors working in not for profit orgnizations or highly indigent environments where they are already feeling the pressure of taking medicaid payments on services that in reality cost twice as much?

I still really want one of you to look at this bill and see whats being "proposed", than think about how providers are reimbursed, and seriously tell me this is a great idea. Oh yeah and for the third time where is the government going to get these funds?
 
Dale, I never stated I was a spokesperson for ALL health care professionals opinions on health care. What I am is someone who is around health care professionals all day and have yet to find one excited about this program though I did say I am sure their are supporters.
But yet...you presented your original post from a position of knowledge and "insidership". If you're not the spokesperson...how could you have such in depth iodeas as to not only how it works currently, but how it will work in the future?

You also very boldly stated this:
...And Chris remember what a statistic really is. Believe me health care professionals are not excited about this bill. I am sure some are not opposed don't get me wrong but to say 62% of professionals support this unfinished bill is silly and I think you know that. Who published this information and how was the number derived?...
I'm sorry, but which 2,000+ doctors and physicians did you talk to in order to get this information? Sure does seem to be a public relatiopns sort of statement...something a spokesperson would make, perhaps?

Onto your statistics. 63% of 2,130 physicians polled said they support this bill in "some" fashion. You understand statistics so knowing the type of physician, where they practice, and specifically what kind of practices do they run is essential here. Are they doctors working in not for profit orgnizations or highly indigent environments where they are already feeling the pressure of taking medicaid payments on services that in reality cost twice as much?
Careful...you starting to sound more like an insurance company than a medical professional. And when you consider the following statements--

I still really want one of you to look at this bill and see whats being "proposed", than think about how providers are reimbursed, and seriously tell me this is a great idea. Oh yeah and for the third time where is the government going to get these funds?
You make yourself sound more like an insurance company defending rate increases, claims denials, and other fraudulent activities by way of justification through cost.

Come one now...you've been around long enough to know that backpedalling doesn't work...

You predicted how it would work when you said this:
...You see the big government MCO will offer even lower reimbursements so its cheaper for them to underwrite care and since the majority of people will not keep their private inurance plans HCO's will be forced to accept these patients on our national health plan or go out of business. However, the HCO's administrative expenses and cost to give the same care will not be reduced nor will their malpractice insurance be lowered. So now HCO's are being asked to pay the same to run their business and except less money, but thats not quite possible either because if done this way bankruptcy would be only months away, and thats where health care rationing comes in. These doctors will have to perform less services and procedures a month to cover their expenses to stay in business. We won't need any less care, but we'll get it in the form of having to wait months, have the cheaper option given to us, or just not have it not covered at all. So quality and accessibility can not be cured with a national health plan, but instead made worse....
That's a fairly bold set of statements for you to make, don't you think? You might not call that an assumption or a prediction...but I do.

And you're gonna have to try harder than that...
 
Interesting... I just saw another statistic last night that said 65% of physicians polled were against the healthcare plan... Looks like polling 2,000 people doesn't get every physician's opinion either... :cool:
 
LOL Chris, I am a person of knowledge from my immediate arena and thats what I said on opinions on this plan. Twisting words in a defense makes it appear you have nothing valid to add to your point.

As for me sounding like an insurance company because I ask about the backgrounds of the polled doctors thats also a poor attempt at deflecting a valuable question. The hospitalist is very different than the single practice or partnered physician. Remember health care IS A BUSINESS.

Now on your last "you sound like an insurance company statement where am I backpedaller? I said look at the bill, how their planning on reimbursing providers, and still tell me understanding that HEALTH CARE IS A BUSINESS why this is a good idea. I am asking you to do what I did and base your argument for a national health plan on fact. How and where is our government going to get this money to fuel the health care INDUSTRY?

When one can not defend their stance with fact or even an explanation of the simplest questions about payment it would seem that one in all reality knows NOTHING about the subject. You my friend are the backpedaller support your claim!!
 
Interesting... I just saw another statistic last night that said 65% of physicians polled were against the healthcare plan... Looks like polling 2,000 people doesn't get every physician's opinion either... :cool:

Citation, please? Otherwise, :shrugs:


Dale
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top