Obama and McCain win Wisconsin (hell)

[Reverend Rick]

The "contain costs" is what I am talking about. A program that reimburses doctors a set fee for a paticular service. That fee will be too low for doctors to honor the new insurance, just like Medicaid.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

And your assuming it will.

I haven't made any assumptions and I'm not the one making broad-based claims.

Take a look at the current medicare situation. Doctors receive what medicare wants to pay for a paticular service which is next to nothing. Many doctors just retire rather than work for nothing.

Young new doctors often do not accept medicare or tell new patients looking for a new doctor (because the old one retired), that they are not accepting new patients all the while folks with blue cross walk in for the very first time every day.

When all these people get national health care, there will not be one more doctor than before. People wait long enough for an appointment as it is.

What will happen is, people with national health care will have to wait for ever to get an appointment while folks with premium health care will go to the front of the line.

I would estimate that most doctors will just not be accepting new patients at this time. That will be the rhetoric, watch and see.

You're making assumptions again. Why do you assume the new plan must look like medicare?

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by nutshell

I haven't made any assumptions and I'm not the one making broad-based claims.



You're making assumptions again. Why do you assume the new plan must look like medicare?

To keep cost down is the key phrase. Many insurances have a list of doctors you must see. The one's who accept a set fee for a paticular service. The ones who lose money and retire or provide substandard health care. HMO's have done this for years. Not one sought out doctor honors HMO's because it is a set free for paticular service and that figure is way too low.

You cannot have quality health care and keep costs down. People in the health care industry are there to make money, not work harder for less.

Obama wants to raise people up, unless you are in the health care industry. He wants them to work longer and harder for less money. That sounds like the evil republicans he rails against.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

To keep cost down is the key phrase. Many insurances have a list of doctors you must see. The one's who accept a set fee for a paticular service. The ones who lose money and retire or provide substandard health care. HMO's have done this for years. Not one sought out doctor honors HMO's because it is a set free for paticular service and that figure is way too low.

You cannot have quality health care and keep costs down. People in the health care industry are there to make money, not work harder for less.

Obama wants to raise people up, unless you are in the health care industry. He wants them to work longer and harder for less money. That sounds like the evil republicans he rails against.

If what you say is true why does Hillary bash Obama's health care plan and say it leaves 15 million unprotected?

[Francine]

Originally Posted by nutshell

If what you say is true why does Hillary bash Obama's health care plan and say it leaves 15 million unprotected?

Because when it comes to those people who absolutely refuse to get Health Care, Obama tells them "fine be that way" and Hillary says, "No choice, get health care, or pay a fine"

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by Francine

Because when it comes to those people who absolutely refuse to get Health Care, Obama tells them "fine be that way" and Hillary says, "No choice, get health care, or pay a fine"

Exactly.


I wonder where Rick went.

[Izdaari]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

He's correct about Iraq and the need for cautious diplomacy in a dangerous world (much closer to correct than McCain, anyway). I disagree with Obama on several issues, but I find him preferable to the alternatives.

And in the end, it's OUR Presidency, not the candidate's anyway, unless we the people remain too lazy or too scared to care what's going on, and trust politicians with our money, safety and the future we leave to our children and grandchildren. I for one don't trust them . . . so the more a candidate insists he or she knows what's best and is committed to their course, the less likely he or she is to get my vote. Eight years of "The Decider" is quite enough, thank you.

The issues in a campaign don't matter, unless you and I are inspired to engage in the governing process ourselves - paying attention, making our voices heard, participating the policy dialogue. Without that, the "issues" are - as they have been for a while - empty campaign trail rhetoric. If so, there's no point in comparing them because they are all just lies.

I don't mean Obama is wrong on the specific campaign issues, relative to other Democrats perhaps, or even to McCain. No, I mean from my libertarian-right PoV, his basic view of how the world works and of the proper role of government, IOW his entire ideology, is all wrong. All I need to know that is to look at his short but 100% left-liberal Senate voting record. But I like the man himself very much. Too bad we disagree on everything.

And btw, I both agree and disagree on Iraq. I don't think we should have invaded in the first place, but I think McCain is right about how we need to handle it now.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Izdaari

And btw, I both agree and disagree on Iraq. I don't think we should have invaded in the first place, but I think McCain is right about how we need to handle it now.

What does McCain think we should do? And what is right about it?

[Izdaari]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger