"breast augmentation? covered."

 

"breast reduction? ....... not covered"

 

"breast augmentation? covered."

 

"breast reduction? ....... not covered"

 

Now we just need the John Edwards picture...

 

"abortions... Covered."

Now we just need the John Edwards picture...

 

"abortions... Covered."

 

haha

Here's a commentary on one of 2k5's favorite arguments; that we can't possibly treat 45 million more people because we don't have enough doctors. From the author of the book "Overtreated".

The Baucus bill includes provisions to increase the number of physicians in the U.S. That’s a good way to increase spending, not decrease it – and it is unlikely to lead to better care and better outcomes. Unfortunately, many members of Congress and the public have accepted the erroneous arguments being made by groups like the Association of Medical Colleges that we need more doctors.

 

The AAMC and others are basing their projections on a couple of faulty premises. One, the current supply of doctors is about right, and two, as the population ages, we will need more doctors than we already have. But if you look at the supply of physicians relative to the population in different parts of the country, there’s not much relationship between how old and sick people are on average (and thus how many doctors might be needed to care for them) and the rate of doctors. That suggests on the face of it that the current supply of doctors in any particular place isn’t based on what patients need. Second, there’s also no consistent relationship between the number of doctors and patient outcomes. In other words, more doctors doesn’t lead to better care or better health.

 

On the other hand, there is a relationship between the number of doctors and how much we spend per capita. Spending is generally higher in places with more physicians, particularly more specialists. Los Angeles, for instance, is awash in doctors compared with the size of the population. So is Miami. What all this says is more doctors – and particularly more specialists – probably won’t lead to better health, but it will lead to higher costs.

Here's a commentary on one of 2k5's favorite arguments; that we can't possibly treat 45 million more people because we don't have enough doctors. From the author of the book "Overtreated".

 

Forced relocations? Sweet.

Forced relocations? Sweet.

My God, you read that and that's what you come up with? Jesus H. Christ. "There is no correlation between number of doctors and health care outcomes but there is a strong correlation between number of doctors and increased costs" = "We're going to force doctors to move at gunpoint."

My God, you read that and that's what you come up with? Jesus H. Christ. "There is no correlation between number of doctors and health care outcomes but there is a strong correlation between number of doctors and increased costs" = "We're going to force doctors to move at gunpoint."

 

It is fun to be the party out of control, I must say.

It is fun to be the party out of control, I must say.

 

Besides, it is make up whatever you want your opponent to say day... so I figured I play along.

Here's a good read on the malpractice issue that keeps coming up. It tries to cover both sides...yes, there's probably some additional spending due to the fact that we haven't fixed the malpractice system, this author estimates about $60 billion annually (about 3% of health care costs, not something to sneeze at but not anywhere near the difference between us and the rest of the world). But at the same time, there's an awful lot of malpractice going on that could be fixed, is never dealt with because the barriers to doing anything about it have been set so high, and also makes people more sick and more injured.

Here's a good read on the malpractice issue that keeps coming up. It tries to cover both sides...yes, there's probably some additional spending due to the fact that we haven't fixed the malpractice system, this author estimates about $60 billion annually (about 3% of health care costs, not something to sneeze at but not anywhere near the difference between us and the rest of the world). But at the same time, there's an awful lot of malpractice going on that could be fixed, is never dealt with because the barriers to doing anything about it have been set so high, and also makes people more sick and more injured.

Yes, and we know the only thing that can fix it is the government.

 

Yes, and we know the only thing that can fix it is the government.

You have other solutions to fixing the malpractice problem?

You have other solutions to fixing the malpractice problem?

Government's the only way. You all have proven your point so much that there is no other solution, even when they're offered.

Government's the only way. You all have proven your point so much that there is no other solution, even when they're offered.

Which solution are you referring to?

Which solution are you referring to?

Having everyone who's not the government and in control of the courts ban malpractice claims.

Wait a second, health insurers have an anti-trust exemption? Why?

Wait a second, health insurers have an anti-trust exemption? Why?

 

So they can make assloads of money without having to compete in a free market for it?

SHHHH!!! Don't tell the GOP representatives this:

 

Even Republican Voters Favor The Public Option

The poll asked this question: "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

 

The top-line result is 65% in favor, 26% opposed. Among Democrats only, it's 81%-12%, and independents are at 61%-30%. And among Republican respondents, 47% are in favor, to 42% opposed.

First Public Option amendment gets shot down.

First Public Option amendment gets shot down.

So did the second.

Dems are a bunch of inept douche bags.

Dems are a bunch of inept douche bags.

THey know the bill wont pass with a public option.

THey know the bill wont pass with a public option.

They have 60 votes.

Dems are a bunch of inept douche bags.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Dems are a bunch of inept douche bags.

Seriously they are. And they try to blame the Republicans for blowing it when they have a supermajority.

Edited September 29, 200916 yr by lostfan

look at the dem senators opposing the PO, and look whose funding them.