Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Wednesday, June 10. 2009AMA Rejects Obamacare RxHugh Hewitt has been calling on the nation’s doctors to take their customary leading role of trust by Americans to oppose Obamacare, especially the so-called “public” (read, government) health insurance that would displace private insurance at astronomical costs, bureaucracy, and interference in medical advancements and treatment decisions. Hewitt has been pessimistic they would, feeling the American Medical Association is “cowed…by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid hard-left edge of the Democratic Party.” Hewitt should have had more faith in the AMA’s 250,000 doctors. The New York Times reports:
The New York Times tries to cushion the blow to Obamacare advocates by saying:
However, the New York Times fails to mention that the Physicians for a National Health Program claims just “more than 16,000 members,” and that one does not have to be a physician to join, its joining page requiring just “$40 / Year -- Health reform advocates (Non Physicians)” to be a member. I suppose that the NYTs’ coverage of Obama’s speech to the AMA’s convention next Monday will laud Obama for his great courage in telling the overwhelming majority of the nation’s doctors they don’t know medicine.
Posted by Bruce Kesler
in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays, Politics
at
23:38
| Comments (7)
| Trackbacks (0)
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
“the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”
BINGO! This is exactly what politicians want! Force tax payers to pay more. Politicians make money by spending denizen's tax money. They can take more money by "providing" more "services". Medical insurance is perfect for them because everyone pays up front to receive services later (years later). By the time most tax payers need to use the system, it's too late to do anything about it. "Politicians make money by spending denizen's tax money."
Indeed! Every time a transaction passes through another set of hands, expenses of some magnitude are tacked onto the bill. I recall reading that every transaction handled by the government increases the cost of that transaction by about 30%. The NYT's actually did admit somewhere towards the end of that article that there was no way to pay for this plan. I'm sure it must have killed them to say such, but they did.
` Who cares what the AMA thinks -they are only concerned with profits and when did health care become a profit center-only in the USA. Other countries put people's "right to Life" in their constitution -unfortunately in the USA its the "live and let die" syndrome. The USA spends more on health care because of the greed of insurance companies, drug companies, medical clinics and politicans who own hospital chains...and that all has to come to an end. People's health comes first -or else the war in Iraq -has cost billions-for what? To let people here die because its -too costly. Rubbish.
T:
Most of that you say is wrong. Also, you sound terribly angry. Teriss ... You, on the other hand, are not concerned with making enough money to stay alive? How interesting, and "a load of old cobblers" as the Brits term it. You should care that the American Medical Association, whose members are the skilled doctors who will keep your angry old self alive when you get sick, is populated by expert doctors who make enough money to stay alive themselves long enough to do so.
Now when you get calmed down enough again to read, actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States you will find the phrase "right to life" right there in black and white, along with rights to liberty and the "pursuit of happiness." Note that last phrase. You've got a right, in this country, to pursue happiness, not to be guaranteed it. { And with your attitude toward other's rights, it may always elude you.} I agree that one should try to live the kind of life that will allow one to stay healthy -- not being an alcoholic, or a drug addict helps with that. I know. I'm 81 years old and have had an active life in which I deliberately avoided that. But you seem to have avoided learning anything substantive about the free enterprise system, which hangs together on the principle that each person with a skill gets to make enough profit to support himself and his family. So insurance companies, manufacturing companies and sales companies all need to make a profit to continue to function. Not just you, Buster. "People's health comes first," you say. Ever thought about paying for your own health care with your own money? Instead of paying for your health care with my tax money? Marianne I guess he discounts that doctors pay for medical school and spend up to 12 years in school, if not more. They should work for minimum wage the hard hours that they work? And one 'miracle' drug might cost R & D of big pharmaceutical firms billions of dollars from beginning to end. People's health care vs. the war in Iraq? I suppose I could find some kind of logic in that, but I can't be bothered. I bet we'll have some great Iraqi doctors here working soon. That's great considering anyone thinking about medical school now is probably thinking twice. So much for Teriss' "rights".... Hunh?
` |
Tracked: Jun 11, 20:01