Opinions and musings on religion, philosophy, science, politics, and life from a conservative Catholic neurosurgeon.
Yeah, take that, Obama, for being for ideas the GOP used to be for, like the Individual Mandate! And how dare he be for things that Republicans tend to be for as long as they aren't called "Obamacare"!If it's struck down, it'll be Morning in America, and you can wake up, stretch, and say "hello" to the old status quo.
Right, what doctor in their right mind could possibly want a system more like Canada's, with better health outcomes, longer-lived & healthier people, and less financial burden?Oh, right, a Satanically-inspired doctor.
Egnor is a selfish scumbag who'd rather see poor people die or go bankrupt. Sometimes I hope hell exists.
troy,I provide free care to countless people. I have been saving lives for 30 years. I have never-- NEVER-- made a medical decision based on a patient's ability to pay, and I have never referred any patient to collection who could not pay. I operate on children of illegal immigrants just the same as I operate on the children of prosperous bankers and lawyers. I walk the walk, troy. Obamacare would be better for me financially, because more of my indigent patients would be able to pay me. That's why the AMA supported it. But I think it is a bad idea because it is merely an encroachment of big government on a critical part of our economy. "We're from the government and we're here to make things less expensive and more effective" is an oxymoron.You troy, are just a moron.
I'm glad to hear you do these selfless treatments, and I retract my previous comment. I apologize.Still, I don't see how a compassionate person could be against protecting more people from what's basically bad luck.
Thank you. I oppose Obamacare because I want to protect people. I think it is a very bad law that will harm medical care.I support expansion of medicaid for the indigent, and a variety of measures (tax-free medical savings accounts, etc) to help non-indigent people get care.I support universal care. I oppose government control of healthcare. A good analogy is that I support universal access to food, clothing, an shelter in the US, but I would oppose government takeover of agriculture, clothing manufacture, and housing. There are market solutions to the problems in medicine. Government takeover is a problem, not a solution, and will make things worse.
I support expansion of medicaid for the indigent,I oppose government control of healthcare.These two statements are mutually contradictory.
Government takeover is a problem, not a solution, and will make things worse.Hasn't made things worse in Canada.
There is no one system in Canada. Each provinces mandates it's own system. The federal involvement is by the means of tax money being transferred to (back in most cases) the Provinces. Is that what Obamacare mandates? Or is it federally controlled and operated by a soon to be created Department? As I read the reports it is the latter. Perhaps I am mistaken?
First let me state, I am all for well managed universal health care. But who to manage? In Canada the federal government transfers tax funds to the Provinces. The Provincial governments run the health care for that region and supplement the costs with local tax funds. We have everything from near universal in BC, Ontario and East to various 'two tier' (public/private) plans in the West. It is necessary even between some Universal Care provinces (such as Ontario and Quebec) to take private plans to cover cost differences and transfer times when travelling between the provinces, if one cares to avoid footing a HUGE bill - even if only temporarily. The comparison with 'Obamacare' should really be with the UK's NHS. That is the model the US FEDERAL Government wishes to adopt. My humble opinion is that you folks should try it out state-to-state. The funds to do so should be transferred from pet projects, not drawn from new taxes or fees and supplemented by the States revenue. Those who can afford or prioritize universal care can do so, those who opt out can save the funds. THAT would be more like a Canadian plan.
That is the model the US FEDERAL Government wishes to adopt. You really have absolutely no idea what the law says, do you?
Anon, As I understand it this will be a federally run / mandated system? That is akin to the NHS in the UK, or some of our Provinces systems (like my own). Am I incorrect? If not then you may wish to reread my post. I have suggested transfers (ie money ALREADY collected sent back) and state control of the system. But, that aside ditch the sneering arrogant tone if you want to continue to communicate meaningfully with me.
As I understand it this will be a federally run / mandated system?You understand it wrong; it's not "federally run". Who's surprised? Let's see a show of hands.
May the unconstitutional idiotic corrupt power-grab go down in flames.Egnor's perfect track record on constitutional interpretation continues to amaze!Egnor will also be very pleased to hear that, in another ruling, the SC has ruled that lies are protected by the 1st amendment.