Healthcare "reform"?

[Theory5]

Obama wants to help those in need by adding a government healthcare option for everybody. But if the companies in America run the government by means of money and clout with the congressmen and senators, how would this play out? Would doctors aligned with these companies refuse to treat government healthcare patients? What would happen? This would take money away from Healthcare companies, and put it into a government system, which would be managed by government employees (just like the post office! and we know how great of a system that is). This would most likely be an option for people who dont have enough money for an HMO or anything like that. If this goes through would companies cancel their employee health plans and say "go on government healthcare"?
Worried that the government will screw up even worse,
Theory

[Southtown]

I'm no economic expert, so I can't comment on the monetary repercussions. But I know that the bill proposes a bit of bureaucratic influence toward the medical professionals in order to lower costs. I happen to believe that there's already too much influence as it is. Doctors' decisions should not be influenced by anything other than their education. Am I wrong?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

I'm no economic expert, so I can't comment on the monetary repercussions. But I know that the bill proposes a bit of bureaucratic influence toward the medical professionals in order to lower costs. I happen to believe that there's already too much influence as it is. Doctors' decisions should not be influenced by anything other than their education. Am I wrong?

yes you're wrong again of course. sorta wrong if that puts some sugar on the bitter pill. your implicatiuons are wrong at any rate. for example, all this business about "pulling the plug on grandma" and "obama's death panel." what is actually proposed, and mind you there are still at least 5 versions of bills just in the house, is to authorize medicare to pay doctors for their counseling patients on end of life decisions. such counseling includes explaining hospice care, helping to fill out a living will, making your desires known to doctors and family before you are too incapacitated to make them known, and other such medical cares & costs associated with end-of-life medicine.

as it is now,medicare patients can get that from doctors but they have to pay out of pocket. without the counseling, and also as it is now, doctors tend to err on the side of caution to avoid malpractice and they apply any and all means to keep a patient alive. studies have shown that in many cases these efforts do not extend either the length or quality of life and that they are costly is obvious.

in no case, in no proposed bill, is the couseling required.

[Theory5]

So is anyone here one of the few who have actually read most or the entire bill?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Theory5

So is anyone here one of the few who have actually read most or the entire bill?

again, there is no "one" bill yet. no i have not read "them"; i have instead listened to the authors on reputable news sources discussing what they are planning.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Theory5

So is anyone here one of the few who have actually read most or the entire bill?

Which version?

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Turtle

yes you're wrong again of course. sorta wrong if that puts some sugar on the bitter pill. your implicatiuons [sic] are wrong at any rate. for example, all this business about "pulling the plug on grandma" and "obama's death panel." what is actually proposed, and mind you there are still at least 5 versions of bills just in the house, is to authorize medicare to pay doctors for their counseling patients on end of life decisions. such counseling includes explaining hospice care, helping to fill out a living will, making your desires known to doctors and family before you are too incapacitated to make them known, and other such medical cares & costs associated with end-of-life medicine.

as it is now,medicare patients can get that from doctors but they have to pay out of pocket. without the counseling, and also as it is now, doctors tend to err on the side of caution to avoid malpractice and they apply any and all means to keep a patient alive. studies have shown that in many cases these efforts do not extend either the length or quality of life and that they are costly is obvious.

in no case, in no proposed bill, is the couseling [sic] required.

So, help me understand. Is there bureaucratic meddling to save costs, or no?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

So, help me understand. Is there bureaucratic meddling to save costs, or no?

that is a loaded/rhetorical question that doesn't deserve an expository answer. not even wrong.

[Southtown]

You said I was wrong, but did you even get my point? I didn't say anything about end of life counseling. And is that indicative of some fundamental change or what?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

You said I was wrong, but did you even get my point? I didn't say anything about end of life counseling. And is that indicative of some fundamental change or what?

i said 'not even wrong'* , and i got the point. you implied that any/all government involvement is meddling. if all you want to do is take shots at the government, there's facebook for that.

i earlier mentioned your own state's new government program when you lamented your lack of insurance, and i recall you replied you didn't read the paper. actually, i first saw the story on local tv news. do you watch tv then? where do you get your news on the healthcare reform effort?

Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by wiki

*An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively, theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything.