Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No I didn't say that. I said that physicians have a vested interest making their biased contributions readily dismissable on that basis.
Before I bother reading or replying to the rest of your message, let me ask you something: Do you plan on pathologically disrespecting the words I use to describe my perspective, and are you therefore intent on committing such deception repeatedly, instead of actually replying to what I write? If you cannot find the integrity to respond to what I write instead of distorting it into something that you're capable of arguing against, then don't reply, because all I'm going to do is point out the deception you engage in, dismiss the rest of your comments, and move on. I focus my comments on only those aspects of the issues for which I have substantive perspective, and I work hard to make sure that my comments are kept strictly in that context, whether you like it or not.
Now, go back and read what I wrote. Reply only to it, not some dumbing down of it, not to some nuance-removed perturbation of it. If, instead, you find that I've so perfectly conditioned and measured my comments so that you cannot post a reply that satisfies your desire to express vitriol, without changing the meaning on what I wrote, then please admit that so I don't have to continually point it out. Thanks.
"............I've so perfectly conditioned and measured my comments so that you cannot post a reply that satisfies your desire to express vitriol....."
And now things are even a little better than before ACA.
What is your objection to things getting better for those most vulnerable in society?
Other than it cramps your style or makes it harder for you to afford comfort and luxury.
Someone making $94k isn't vulnerable.
You do realize someone making $95k who's self employed will end up being more vulnerable than someone making $94k because do the way subsidies work at the 400% mark.
You are welcome to review my posts. I have no objection if the ACA were just a Medicaid expansion. Those are the most vulnerable people. Yes. We should cover them
The issue I have had is the subsidy game. The Dems had to include subsides to appeal to the middle class. They had no shot to pass the ACA without selling it to the middle class.
So do you think the middle class is also part of the most vulnerable part of society?
Back to the Thread, when living in Central NJ, my Dr. and Kids Dr. were all located 30 miles away on other side of Princeton. Local Dr. not taking new patients that was in 1985. NJ largest pop.per square mile.
So you claim. I didn't set the thresholds. Maybe I would set the numbers a little differently. Maybe you would set them even differently from that. But we don't get to impose our own personal preferences on the nation, even though you perhaps think you are special and should be entitled to do so.
Are you capable of seeing your own preference in the proper perspective, i.e., as you own personal preference and nothing more, and therefore only one infinitesimally small contribution to society's decision about how much is enough? Or are you insistent that the nation should revolve around your own personal preferences and that the nation should set itself subservient to your dictate, specifically?
$94K to raise a family of four in New York - sounds a little low to me, even in the most affordable safe and clean housing. I always thought that the threshold for subsidy should be related to local CPI, not a blanket, nationwide FPL. But it was red staters who insisted on the flat rate approach. Oh wait - they're the people on your side of the argument. How embarrassing for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
The Dems had to include subsides to appeal to the middle class.
Perhaps, although very few truly middle class people get any of the larger subsidies. The more you make, the less subsidy you get. My preference would have been an in-kind arrangement rather than a subsidy. None of us can reasonably expect to get what we personally prefer. Why do you continually post nonsense implying that you are entitled to expect such?
So you claim. I didn't set the thresholds. Maybe I would set the numbers a little differently. Maybe you would set them even differently from that. But we don't get to impose our own personal preferences on the nation, even though you perhaps think you are special and should be entitled to do so.
Are you capable of seeing your own preference in the proper perspective, i.e., as you own personal preference and nothing more, and therefore only one infinitesimally small contribution to society's decision about how much is enough? Or are you insistent that the nation should revolve around your own personal preferences and that the nation should set itself subservient to your dictate, specifically?
$94K to raise a family of four in New York - sounds a little low to me, even in the most affordable safe and clean housing. I always thought that the threshold for subsidy should be related to local CPI, not a blanket, nationwide FPL. But it was red staters who insisted on the flat rate approach. Oh wait - they're the people on your side of the argument. How embarrassing for you.
Perhaps, although very few truly middle class people get any of the larger subsidies. The more you make, the less subsidy you get. My preference would have been an in-kind arrangement rather than a subsidy. None of us can reasonably expect to get what we personally prefer. Why do you continually post nonsense implying that you are entitled to expect such?
I am the one who argues and many will agree with me on the pitfalls of the ACA. Judging from other's opinion of the ACA, they share many of my same views. So my personal preference is shared by just a little bit more than just being one infinitesimally small contribution to society's decision. So the nation isn't revolving about my own personal preferences. It's revolving about millions who share my preferences.
Back to the Thread, when living in Central NJ, my Dr. and Kids Dr. were all located 30 miles away on other side of Princeton. Local Dr. not taking new patients that was in 1985. NJ largest pop.per square mile.
Private physicians can take whoever they want. If they don't want to take any more medicaid patients, they don't have to.
I would normally suggest if someone can't find a doctor, they should just find someone in their local county health office or hospital
Oops.
That may be a problem as well since many "safety net" clinics are losing valuable funding because of the ACA.
The ACA assumes more people will get insured so they are decreasing funding from such safety net clinics.
Thanks for making clear, finally, that you don't have a legitimate reply. Just admit that from the start next time, please.
Sure
I pointed out several point by point REALITIES from someone actually in medicine , for which you did not have a rational "remedy".
You live in a world of emotions and false morality, while I live and work on the actual real world. In that real world , people do not work for the pleasure of liberals, despite their "moral" wishes .
PS- you addressed none of my points, despite your insistence, as you have no rational solutions.
It's revolving about millions who share my preferences.
There is no question that elevating one's own personal comfort and luxury over the basic needs of others is a perspective held by more than a few of your colleagues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
You live in a world of emotions and false morality
The perspective that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members is not a false morality - it is the prevailing professed morality of civilization. The ethic of reciprocity is the most universally held ethic among all belief systems, both religious and not.
Those who support what you support live in a world of rationalized self-centeredness and avarice. How folks deign to consider that as morality is mystifying to me but it surely is one's prerogative to call up "down" and call right "left".
There is no question that elevating one's own personal comfort and luxury over the basic needs of others is a perspective held by more than a few of your colleagues.
The perspective that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members is not a false morality - it is the prevailing professed morality of civilization. The ethic of reciprocity is the most universally held ethic among all belief systems, both religious and not.
Those who support what you support live in a world of rationalized self-centeredness and avarice. How folks deign to consider that as morality is mystifying to me but it surely is one's prerogative to call up "down" and call right "left".
It is professed, not confirmed, and even if it was, it is morality, not fact, morality being subject to countless factors are is not the same between two people, let alone millions..
Futher more what counts as self centeredness? Let me guess wanting free health care is not self centeredenss and averaice but wanting to be paid for your time, skill, and labor is, right?
bUU, What do you do for a living?
Everyone, No matter what his post are, ask him this question, do not relent..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
