Any particular reason why you singled out aid to Israel? Especially when aid to Afghanistan and Iraq are significantly higher?
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Any particular reason why you singled out aid to Israel? Especially when aid to Afghanistan and Iraq are significantly higher?
This is a pretty good answer to your question (link below). Medicare covers the elderly and disabled, who are some of the largest consumers of healthcare services. It can be career suicide to stop accepting Medicare patients unless you have a good alternative, like maybe specializing in obstetrics or working on a "concierge" basis (which is mentioned in the link).
ETA: Just noticed that article is a bit outdated. The Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) for Medicare physician reimbursement was replaced by a law known as MACRA a few years ago that completely re-vamped the payment model.
https://www.hlc.org/news/more-physicians-no-longer-seeing-medicare-patients/
You said it would remove the earning incentive. They still make six figures in Britain and Canada. That’s a pretty hefty incentive. Sure it’s less incentive than here, but that’s not what you said.
Agree on the wall and Afghanistan, but everything else is definitely more important than a free college education for all. One of the biggest mistakes the k-12 school system has made is telling kids they have to go to college.
no just throwing shit out there
but take a look, $15 billion to these 5 countries
More than two hundred countries receive U.S. aid. It disproportionately goes to a few, however, with the top five all receiving over $1 billion per year as of 2016: Iraq ($5.3 billion), Afghanistan ($5.1 billion), Israel ($3.1 billion), Egypt ($1.2 billion), and Jordan ($1.2 billion).
Last edited:
You're a commie socialist.
I thought providers lost money on Medicare patients? So why aren’t they trying to minimize Medicare patients to cut their losses?
I’m confused why that would be career suicide if it’s not profitable.
I think his point was that if a person could go into significant debt for med school, take on the opportunity cost of attending med school for several years instead of entering the job market earlier, have the stress and schedule of being a doctor, etc. and make the same amount (or less) than someone who has a presumably more laid back job with a better schedule that didn't require nearly as much upfront cost or time in school - why would anyone pick the former?
Yes six figures is a solid income - but it needs to be looked at on a relative scale.
Now you're just being obtuse. The relative difference in earning incentive is astronomical. We're talking multiples. And if you could instead choose to be some office worker with far fewer years of education, shorter work weeks, and a helluva lot less stress yet still make the same salary, imagine how many physicians would choose a different career.
Some 10,000 Americans age into the Medicare benefit every single day. We're on the front end of a tidal wave of demand for healthcare services. We need more doctors, not less, so it would be inexplicably foolish to remove the incentive for people to pursue careers in medicine.
Thanks. Seems to me that this would end up being another problem with single payer. Either you would be taxed to death and have a hard time finding a doctor or you would be taxed to death and have to pay the "concierge" model.
Wait times in Canada, no thanks.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2019
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2019
It's almost like their demand for healthcare services exceeds their supply of healthcare services.
Yes I have a degree in economics. Generally we try to minimize losses and maximize profits. If a certain type of clients are creating a loss then I’d want as few of those as possible. Which is why I asked why not taking them would be career suicide. Sure your demand would take a huge hit but that doesn’t matter if the lost demand was below the supply cost curve anyways.
The demand for those cushier jobs that pay the same amount is finite. At some point the market still pushes people into the medical field.
I’d love to see us pay doctors well and still not have people crippled by medical debt. I don’t think those are mutually exclusive goals.
You sounded snarky so I replied in kind. The short version is that providers still need enough volume to cover the fixed costs of the business: property, buildings, equipment, etc. Nearly 1 in 5 insured Americans are covered by Medicare or Medicare Advantage. You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em.
Sure, but you still end up with far fewer physicians than we currently have. I've already explained why that would be catastrophic in the face of surging demand.
I agree those aren't mutually exclusive goals. In fact, it has to happen because the current model is unsustainable. One of the reasons I hammer people who bitch about Obamacare is because they don't understand the ways in which the law tries to bend the cost curve to slow medical spending. The industry is a fully-loaded freight train, though, so it's hard to make it change directions quickly.
Didn’t mean to.
That clarified things. I was thinking a net loss while factoring in both the unit fixed and variable costs. But if they make up ground on their fixed cost overhead then it makes perfect sense.
Texas too for The Bern. Biden gonna win more states but Comrade gonna win more delegates
He's losing Mass by 6 points currently. Maine is separated by like 30 votes.
Biden going to win Tenn, Ark, Okla, Minnesota, Alabama, NC, VA. He's going to hang close in Texas so those delegates will get chopped up between the 3 of them.
None of them are going to get the 2,000 they need before the convention and the party will rally around Biden.
If they pick Biden, Bernie voters might just riot. They certainly won't vote for Biden.
can’t vote for bernie, just can’t...biden can’t string sentences together...income, taxes, personal life is great...it was also great under obama, bush, and 2nd half of clinton,
is this real????
is this real????
They will either come to their senses or accept four more years of Trump. I wouldn’t place a bet on either because they’re that irrational.
Lol @ Elizabeth Warren for looking like she's going to get zero delegates from her home state.
BLR is the absolute best. Somehow, Pelosi’s face is made even more punchable.
Just goes to show you how little the president actually matters in daily life.
Bernie voters won't vote for Biden. the DNC keeps rolling-out the same old crap. Joe Biden is just another ancient party fossil who is in the pocket of Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman and General Dynamics.
The DNC is addicted to this "Next Old Fart In Line" corporate-shill candidate strategy. Sanders supporters are fervent and stubborn.
I'm content to see Trump win by an even larger margin this time.
The DNC is addicted to this "Next Old Fart In Line" corporate-shill candidate strategy. Sanders supporters are fervent and stubborn.
I'm content to see Trump win by an even larger margin this time.
Looks like she'll pick up some delegates but finish third in her own state. Time for her to drop out, and prove she doesn't actually have a progressive bone in her body by endorsing Biden.
Chris Matthews accidentally let it slip on live television. He basically said something along the lines of 'a lot of party leaders would rather just wait another four years and get someone in that they actually like." The DNC's financial backers would much rather lose with Biden than win with Bernie.
unless we’re talking about the environment and the scotus...then, i’ve got problems with the far right.
eta: and just show some decorum...when he was at the nih yesterday it was super awkward.
He's no where near life support thanks to how delegates are won. Current estimated delegate count:
660 for Biden
586 for Sanders
110 for Bloomberg
101 for Warren
Contested convention won super Tuesday.
Similar threads
