RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 12:00:16 PM)

quote:

I'm not sure the point is that a speculum will be used, but, that it's Uncle Sam doing the looking. That's the point of both commercials, and the reason for the "Don't let government play doctor" bit at the end of the commercials.


Is there a good reason for the govt to "not play doctor"?
It would appear that when the govt plays doctor for congress it does a pretty fair job. How does that compare to what the "for pay" health care providers give?




Yachtie -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 12:01:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I didnt see her plagiarise my words either as I have seen others do so on this site.



People here plagiarize your words? Really? I haven't noticed anyone taking what you wrote and claiming it for their own. Why would anyone wish to do that?




Moonhead -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 12:19:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
That pesky free speech, though...

Free? That deeply shit video seems to have cost the Kochs five million dollars.
That ain't value for money...




DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 12:52:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

I'm not sure the point is that a speculum will be used, but, that it's Uncle Sam doing the looking. That's the point of both commercials, and the reason for the "Don't let government play doctor" bit at the end of the commercials.

Is there a good reason for the govt to "not play doctor"?
It would appear that when the govt plays doctor for congress it does a pretty fair job. How does that compare to what the "for pay" health care providers give?


Isn't the point of going to a Dr. to see a Dr.? Having Big Gov providing the medical services isn't what people go to the Dr. for. The go for the Dr. to provide the services.

Government hires Dr.'s to provide services for Congress, right? So, a Dr. is providing the services. The Government is just paying for the services.

I wonder how "government clinics" would fair against private clinics, which would be a much more relevant question. But, I don't know of any studies that have studied this, so there is no support for either one being better or worse than the other.




Moonhead -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 12:57:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Isn't the point of going to a Dr. to see a Dr.? Having Big Gov providing the medical services isn't what people go to the Dr. for. The go for the Dr. to provide the services.

Government hires Dr.'s to provide services for Congress, right? So, a Dr. is providing the services. The Government is just paying for the services.

I wonder how "government clinics" would fair against private clinics, which would be a much more relevant question. But, I don't know of any studies that have studied this, so there is no support for either one being better or worse than the other.


So if Big Government is providing the Doctor, it's no longer a proper Doctor, and The People won't take it seriously as a Doctor?




kalikshama -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 1:04:42 PM)

quote:

I wonder how "government clinics" would fair against private clinics, which would be a much more relevant question. But, I don't know of any studies that have studied this, so there is no support for either one being better or worse than the other.


Well, anecdotally, I have mixed feelings about VA health care. There are good points, such as the computerized records, but I'm having a hard time explaining to my current GYN that a normal menstrual cycle is 28 days, not 24, and that I have a longer cycle - 35-40 days - so the prescription for Prometrium that I take from ovulation to menstruation won't work as she wrote it, which is "days 15-24."

Every 6 month when I ask the shrink to refill my Rx for Xanax, he is reluctant due to its addictive nature, and every 6 months I reply that he only gives me 5 pills at a time so if I take 5 pills in 6 months, I'm not at risk for addiction.

There are some providers that are very good, but I'm sure others work for the VA b/c they couldn't cut it in private practice.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 1:19:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Isn't the point of going to a Dr. to see a Dr.? Having Big Gov providing the medical services isn't what people go to the Dr. for. The go for the Dr. to provide the services.
Government hires Dr.'s to provide services for Congress, right? So, a Dr. is providing the services. The Government is just paying for the services.
I wonder how "government clinics" would fair against private clinics, which would be a much more relevant question. But, I don't know of any studies that have studied this, so there is no support for either one being better or worse than the other.

So if Big Government is providing the Doctor, it's no longer a proper Doctor, and The People won't take it seriously as a Doctor?


Your Dr. should be in charge of your health care, not your Government.




mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 1:27:47 PM)

and they are in charge more and more, and insurance less and less.




Moonhead -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 2:08:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Isn't the point of going to a Dr. to see a Dr.? Having Big Gov providing the medical services isn't what people go to the Dr. for. The go for the Dr. to provide the services.
Government hires Dr.'s to provide services for Congress, right? So, a Dr. is providing the services. The Government is just paying for the services.
I wonder how "government clinics" would fair against private clinics, which would be a much more relevant question. But, I don't know of any studies that have studied this, so there is no support for either one being better or worse than the other.

So if Big Government is providing the Doctor, it's no longer a proper Doctor, and The People won't take it seriously as a Doctor?


Your Dr. should be in charge of your health care, not your Government.


So government is bad but medical insurers are good, then?
In either case your doctor is following guidelines laid down from above,




mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 2:20:28 PM)

Apparently the idea of the thing they dont like about the Obamacare law is it forces you to go to doctors who look like garden gnomes.




hlen5 -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 2:37:50 PM)

I thought the healthcare pools were for which insurance a consumer would buy and not just getting some "Govt Dr". Like always, your insurance dictates the Dr.




MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 2:46:57 PM)

Hey now, one of My favorite doctors looked like a garden gnome...less the hat though.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Apparently the idea of the thing they dont like about the Obamacare law is it forces you to go to doctors who look like garden gnomes.





thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 3:51:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

I'm not sure the point is that a speculum will be used, but, that it's Uncle Sam doing the looking. That's the point of both commercials, and the reason for the "Don't let government play doctor" bit at the end of the commercials.

Is there a good reason for the govt to "not play doctor"?
It would appear that when the govt plays doctor for congress it does a pretty fair job. How does that compare to what the "for pay" health care providers give?


Isn't the point of going to a Dr. to see a Dr.? Having Big Gov providing the medical services isn't what people go to the Dr. for. The go for the Dr. to provide the services.

Government hires Dr.'s to provide services for Congress, right? So, a Dr. is providing the services. The Government is just paying for the services.


How does this differ from the aca?

quote:

I wonder how "government clinics" would fair against private clinics, which would be a much more relevant question. But, I don't know of any studies that have studied this, so there is no support for either one being better or worse than the other.



Google could be your friend here...that is if you are actually interested in how a govt run health care compares to insurance conmpany run health care.
The va has pretty extensive public records and so do the insurance co.
The govt has been my primary health care provider since I was 17 I am now 69. I am proactive in my health care...which means I tell my doctor what I want


quote:



Your Dr. should be in charge of your health care, not your Government.


That seems to be the mantra of those who are against the aca. How is it that anyone with a pulse and a three digit iq can actually believe that moronic shit.
How is the govt run aca any fucking different than a insurance company running your health care? Doesn't each entity say what is and is not covered? Isn't the choice of dr. about the same?What exactly is the difference?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 4:15:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
So government is bad but medical insurers are good, then?
In either case your doctor is following guidelines laid down from above,


Actually, no.






dcnovice -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 4:29:55 PM)

quote:

Your Dr. should be in charge of your health care, not your Government.

Or, more likely these days, your insurance company.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/20/2013 4:56:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL, yeah, that first one will drive many republicans to Obamacare.

The second? Republicans are wanting into a womans vagina in the worst way, don't know why they dont like that one.


I'm a Republican and I most assuredly want into a woman's vagina!




Moonhead -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/21/2013 8:37:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
So government is bad but medical insurers are good, then?
In either case your doctor is following guidelines laid down from above,


Actually, no.




Actually, yes.
Or have they stopped all this crap about refusing to treat pre-existing conditions and fixing budgets for treatment without telling anybody about it?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/21/2013 10:30:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
So government is bad but medical insurers are good, then?
In either case your doctor is following guidelines laid down from above,

Actually, no.

Actually, yes.
Or have they stopped all this crap about refusing to treat pre-existing conditions and fixing budgets for treatment without telling anybody about it?


Actually, no.

IMO, insurance companies are part of the problem. Moving government into their position will only shift the problem from one group to another. In some discussions (mostly on FB with some of my fellow HS grads), the reasoning went that the high cost of medicine is because employer-provided insurance is a separation from the care provider and the receiver and the payer. Insurance companies negotiate a lower cost with the providers for that insurance company's members. Based on those negotiations, they forecast the amount of risk an employer's covered employees present, and set the premiums accordingly.

Insurance companies, originally, had incentive to negotiate for lower care costs. Lower care costs result in lower premiums, assuming same risk pools. Lower premiums help get larger member pools, which will also help them in negotiating lower care costs.

Fast forward to today's shit mess. Insurance companies are negotiating with the hospitals they own for care costs. They still set premiums based on risk pools, but, care costs are going to be higher. Insurance companies don't have a high profit margin, but care providers do. When you own the insurance company and the hospital, you can take a hit on the insurance side profits as long as you can make them up on the provider side. That is, in effect, a monopoly, and monopoly pricing has taken it's toll. This is precisely why I support legislation separating the two. That would return the pricing competition between hospitals and insurers.

Government has less incentive to raise rates and get the lowest possible prices. They do not have to negotiate to raise money for this. They can take it from the general fund, run deficits and then raise political capital to increase tax revenues based on whatever they find to be most likely to be successful. Republicans can talk about raising money for defense spending, after shorting defense spending to fund health care. Democrats will talk about raising money for social welfare, after shorting social welfare spending. It's a shell game.

So, no, it's not government bad, insurers good. They're both bad.




Moonhead -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/21/2013 12:43:13 PM)

Despite the fact that government funded healthcare works quite a bit better in most of the rest of the western world than the system you have set up there has managed to for a very long time?




dcnovice -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/21/2013 1:15:06 PM)

FR

So how terrible is it that my main reaction was that the male patient is awfully cute? [:)]




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02