At my school in San Francisco, and a lot of people want to become doctors for the money and social status, not for the joy of helping people.

In addition, you yourself has said that some doctors are in it for money. If I were to assume your position for the rest of this sentence, has it occured to your that possibly my doctor was a "refugee" and thus I might have different views from you, who has acquaintences with doctors.

The health care debate is supposed to be about identifying problems and fixing them, not making things personal.

One plan that is worth looking at is from the ever-so-liberal San Francisco. In San Francisco, I get healthcare for $84/year with copays of $5. Seriously. I got hit by a car, and the total cost for the ambulance and ER was five dollars. That's one step away from not costing anything out of pocket.

But oh yeah, that's San Francisco, so we can't do anything they do, right?

PS. I go to a doctor who practices in one of the pooer neighborhoods, and I feel that he knows that the way I heal is by understanding what's wrong with my body, so he takes the time necessary to explain everything to me.

Pre-med students aren't doctors. Many people dislike pre-med students, so yes, if you think that doctors are all secretly pre-med students, mentally, you would probably hate doctors. A small minority of these overachievers are accepted into medical school, and then complete medical school and training.

As for this discussion of money, I noted that money is a factor, but not the root motivation. If you had the opportunity to make more money in the same career, making the same sacrifices in terms of time and energy, would you not make use of that opportunity to better provide for your family? Why is a doctor greedy for relocating in order to finance the education of his children? Also, if higher pay attracts more competent doctors, why would you push for reduced pay? Logic dictates that many good physicians would relocate.

The intelligence, time, effort, and raw devotion to an unforgiving career deserve modest compensation, do they not? Anyone who calls practitioners greedy is ignorant of the personal costs of a medical career, from trouble raising a family to the cost of education.

Two things wrong with the above - 1) none of that has anything to do with the substance of his arguments, and 2) Wikipedia.

(And I'm sure the 'suck as' was just a typo)

@ paragraph one: I don't think you read my post. I never said I hated doctors. I even said at the end I like my own doctor.

@ paragraph two: show me a doctor who has trouble providing for their family. Keep in mind that doctors in most "socialized" countries don't have to pay for medical school. I feel a "good" (as in motivated to help others) physicians would want to give back to the society that gave them the no-tuition medical training.

@ paragraph three: ignorant? Why? because I don't know that medical school in the US throws people in debt and residency has been equated to hell; and once you become a doctor you have to make decisions that could very well cost them their lives on your watch? Oh wait, I knew that stuff right off the top of my head.

By the way, good debators don't leave anything unanswered. So here's the rapid fire of stuff you ignored:

#124

So I read these and the wiki article on the author. He seems like a respectable enough of a figure.

On the site, it had familiar names suck as Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, and Bill O'Reilly. Seems like it's pretty much a Jewish GOP supporting site.

Let's look at some quotes:

"The current "health care" bill threatens to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats." -- multiple democrats have continuously reiterated that the purpose of the current bill is to provide a public option. So, the competition will lower the cost of health care and improve the quality, thus giving those who are constrained by money choices. Explain to me how more choice takes life and death decisions away from us.

"if you preferred to have a nice hospital room with "amenities" rather than being in an unsanitary ward with inadequate nursing care, as under the National Health Service in Britain" -- As smart as this guy may be, he really can't say that without providing some sort of source. He's not a doctor, he's an economist and social commentator, so he can't use himself as a source

"it is as predictable as the sunrise that medical care for the elderly will be cut back under a government-controlled medical system." -- you mean if such a system focused on preventive care, which includes promoting a healthy lifestyle, they government wouldn't need to spend as much money on heart surgeries? okay, I buy that.

"It is part of a whole mindset of many on the left who have never reconciled themselves to an economic system in which how much people can withdraw from the resources of the nation depends on how much they have contributed to those resources." -- That's probably because that's not what the current economic system is. I don't pay fire insurance so that the trucks will come to my house, I pay taxes to contribute to the fire department, which services everyone, even those who would be unable to pay for fire insurance.

#126

With regard to the first part (about the site), wikipedia actually quoted the founder. Yeah, pretty "unreliable"

About the second issue (medicare bill), let's go "trusty" news sources that say the same thing:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml (says drug companies influenced the bill)

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MMAUpdate/ (includes the text of the law)

quote from the summary of the bill: ( http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MMAUpdate/downloads/PL108-173summary.pdf )

"The Best Price section of title XIX is amended to exclude from the best price calculation prices negotiated from manufacturers for covered discount card drugs under a Medicare endorsed discount drug card" (near bottom of page 24)

#136

The health care debate is supposed to be about identifying problems and fixing them, not making things personal.

 

One plan that is worth looking at is from the ever-so-liberal San Francisco. In San Francisco, I get healthcare for $84/year with copays of $5. Seriously. I got hit by a car, and the total cost for the ambulance and ER was five dollars. That's one step away from not costing anything out of pocket.

But oh yeah, that's San Francisco, so we can't do anything they do, right?

 

PS. I go to a doctor who practices in one of the pooer neighborhoods, and I feel that he knows that the way I heal is by understanding what's wrong with my body, so he takes the time necessary to explain everything to me.

yeah, whoops, that's a typo.

I put that in for context. You could argue that my comments about the author were unrelated to the content, but it's nice to know what he was affiliated with when he wrote the article.

I think I was pretty clear about talking about the site instead of the article

And where's your defence of this guy? =P

Not everyone has the luxury of spending limitless time penning responses to forum posts. I participate in these discussions between writing emails and revising reports. I apologize, but I cannot and will not respond to every comment directed at me, especially when I have multiple raving, opinionated members assaulting me with the zeal and self-righteousness only an anonymous citizen of the Internet could possess.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthpolicycenter/recommendations.html

Provide Health Insurance for All

One of the four cornerstones of the Health Policy Center recommendations, providing health insurance for all provides choice, control and peace of mind for individuals through guaranteed, portable health insurance. Insurers, employers, the government and individuals all are responsible for addressing this cornerstone.

Specific recommendations

• Require adults to purchase private health insurance for themselves and their families. Employers could continue to participate by buying insurance for their employees or giving them stipends to purchase it. However, the individual would own the insurance.
• Appoint an independent health board (similar to the Federal Reserve) to provide a simple coordinating mechanism for individuals to select a basic private insurance option. Allow people to purchase more services or insurance, if they choose.
• Provide sliding-scale government subsidies to help people with lower incomes buy insurance.
• Realign the health system toward improving health in addition to treating disease.

Advantages

Portability: Individuals could take their insurance to their next job or perhaps even into retirement.

Accessibility: Participating insurers would have to accept all patients, with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

Choice and control: Individual ownership would allow health insurance to evolve into a service that gives patients more control and choice. Coverage options and health benefit plans would no longer be solely determined by employers on the basis of what is affordable for the majority of company employees.

Improved service: Insurers would compete for an individual's business by offering competitive rates and providing access to networks of doctors. If the insurance plan didn't meet expectations, people could change insurers.

Oh well, surely the director of the Johns Hopkins Geriatric Education Center and Consortium wouldn't be a liberal, medicare praising socialist like those hippies over at the Mayo Clinic!

Nice cop out. Anything you don't feel like answering, or simply can't answer, is just not important enough for your limited time, right?

Considering that I have to stand up against a tag team of ideological allies, it is quite time-consuming. It is difficult to debate an opponent who is outnumbered and afforded no courtesy, yes?

Also, you call me a troll and then hop threads to come harass me without contributing to the discussion. Thank you!

Why do I have to defend him?  You can review his credentials & bio and he can defend himself.  You can either agree or disagree with the points he makes but I don't have to prove anything to you.

I read my local newspaper, the New York Times, Newsweek, HuffPo and other fundamentally leftist organs - occasionally I find stuff I agree with there - but the source doesn't change the substance.  People with similar belief systems naturally aggregate - there's nothing malign about that and to dismiss substantive arguments as unworthy of discussion on the sole basis of who put them forward or the forum they appeared in is the height of intellectual laziness.  Mind you it happens on both sides of our political divide - I'm not taking sides on that score.

Playground bully bullshit that deserves neither a reply nor respect.

That is an interesting point. Does the source of an argument potentially invalidate it? I am not talking about the source in terms of the author, but the forum in which the ideas are presented, such as a conference, newspaper, or blog. If an intelligent, well-informed individual presents a clear, reasonable argument, should it matter that he shared his thoughts through a medium with a poor reputation for objective analysis?

I would argue that sound debate from logical people is no less sound or logical when presented in supposedly biased publications.

Obscenitor, could you not shoot your own stance down quite so blithely.  Actually read the recommendations you just posted.

Government insurance, er... wait, it's not in there...  Kinda looks like Switzerlands system, scary how common that is.  Compulsory, individually purchased basic insurance with optional extra coverage.  Aside from the whole compulsory thing, it's really popular.  We're not real sure how well it works yet, but unlike France, Switzerland hasn't gone bankrupt yet.

Those of us that disagree with being compelled would just like you to fuck off and leave us alone, then tell us to fuck off and leave you alone when we get sick.  We may or may not hold to our convictions when we get sick, but you're supposed to have a sense of fair play and tell us anyway.  This would be the perfect system, except actually having consequences for your inaction is just terrible, and bleeding heart moron liberals just can't stand it!

You weren't here for the MDY/Blizard topic. That went on for weeks, and I spend hours every day doing research. If you aren't willing to put in the time, you shouldn't start the argument, or at least avoid being the front man for one side's arguments.

And it's hardly my fault you're being an asshat in multiple topics I'm following.

I got a chuckle out of this. You spent hours each day doing research for an argument in the off-topic forums of a software company? Incredible.