Yes, you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
|
Yes, you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Lets go with HR 3200. Section 1233 (pages 424 - 434).Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Then there's section 141, which refers to the Health Choices Administration how it sets standards for insurance coverage. And section 142, which refers to the National Health Insurance Exchange which also sets standards for insurance coverage.
Both of these are rationing bodies. They determine who gets what coverage, how much of it, and what the standards for coverage are. Part of their job is to use QALY calculations to determine whether the coverage you need is cost effective. And if it's not, your dead. Thus they are death panels, regardless of what you call them.
When you are done reading these sections of the bill, read this op-ed from the Washington post.
washingtonpost.com
It's there. It's hidden in the language of the bill, but it's there.
Elliot
I read those pages and it says nothing at all of what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
In fact here is Section 141 in its entirety:
Show me the text in the bill that supports your argument - so far we've seen nothing.Quote:
•HR 3200 IH
SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH 8
CHOICES COMMISSIONER. 9
(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an 10
Independent agency in the executive branch of the Govern- 11
Meant, a Health Choices Administration (in this division 12
Referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’). 13
(b) COMMISSIONER.— 14
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be 15
Headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this 16
Division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who 17
Shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 18
Advice and consent of the Senate. 19
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC.—The provisions of 20
Paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relat- 21
Ing to compensation, terms, general powers, rule- 22
Making, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social 23
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the 24
Commissioner and the Administration in the same 25
Manner as such provisions apply to the Commis- 26
Sioner of Social Security and the Social Security Ad- 1
Ministration. 2
Section 141 is about two pages long and you didn't show all of it. Section 142 is just about as long.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
By your own standards, would that make you a liar, as you have called Speechless countless times?
BOTH of those sections discuss the responsibilities of these panels and the methods by which they set STANDARDS within the health care system, and the methodology by which they do so. And that methodology includes QALY testing... what is referred to in the legislation as "efficiency testing" but actually refers to COST EFFICIENCY, not efficacy of the service being provided.
In other words, death panels that determine whether you get treatment based on your age and the cost of the treatment.
And you completely ignored section 1233 which talks about the death counselors for people over the age of 65. Would ignoring that ALSO make you a liar, as you have called Speechless?
Nah... it's just those of us on the right wing who lie, right?
Elliot
NK, you seem to know more about it than we do so tell us how it's going to work. We're not idiots despite what you may believe, I mean of course want the most effective treatments. But knowing how my country works, the people behind this, the already established committee to determine "comparative effectiveness," the fact that controlling costs is mentioned on a daily basis and what it would take for the government to manage health care for everyone, my conclusion is entirely logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If you love the fact that your government decides which treatments are best then I'm happy for you. For me, trusting the feds to make that determination is about as intelligent as playing Russian Roulette... in fact, I don't see much difference between that and Obamacare.
Maybe one reason you Canadians have a higher life expectancy is you keep sending people here for testing and treatment and footing the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I've given you examples and reasons "universal" government run healthcare will reduce life expectancy in the US, and your reply is to say "fear monger?"Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Well if the FACTS are to be feared then cal me a fear monger all you want.
Private health insurance: In one door and out the other?
Quote:
The Supreme Court decision to invalidate Quebec's laws banning private health insurance for services covered under the Canada Health Act continues to stir the passions of physicians and health care providers. At their annual meeting, delegates of the Canadian Medical Association condemned the failures of the public health care system. By a two-thirds majority, they voted to entertain, after a 6-month period of study, the introduction of “private supplementary health insurance.” An opposing motion by the Canadian Association of Internes and Residents was defeated by the same margin.
...
However, a monopoly health care system that does not deliver promised care in a timely, nonarbitrary and fair manner fails this legal test. Governments must either fix the dysfunctions of their health care monopoly or permit individuals to seek care (and the private health insurance to purchase it) elsewhere.
This isn't "rightwing" or GOP or private health insurance propaganda, this is your own medical society and Quebec's majority supreme court decision back in 2005. No a hip replacement was not denied but delays in care and waiting lists might as well be a denial of healthcare.
Here are more facts
GOVERNMENT MEDICINE SHOULD HORRIFY AMERICANS
Besides using life expectancy as a measure of healthcare provided is full of potential confounding factors like:
Tobacco use: does one country have higher tobacco use rates per population? If so this may account for a lower life expectancy.
The same can be said for obesity rates, or high blood pressure rates. Certain ethnicities have higher rates of certain diseases. For example there are higher rates of high blood pressure and diabetes in blacks, hispanics, and certain American indians. Are these factors accounted for in the national life expectancy rates? How about drug abuse or alcoholism rates?
These factors have more of an influence on life expectancy rates than mode of healthcare delivery.
G&P
Those of us opposed to universal healthcare as Obama would have it, have proposed alternatives or changes. Not a peep on the Obamacare side to demonstrate that either these are already part of HR 3200 or should or should not be incorporated. Why?
Why is it that those in favor of Obamacare cannot produce RESULTS better than the current system. Are we as Americans suppose to trust the government to get it right and do it in a cost effective manor?
Unfortunantly this is true:
Marion Illinois woes spur VA to widen probe
Is this the type of healthcare Obama wants for all Americans?Quote:
Sens. Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois requested the hearing. The two Democrats have pushed the VA repeatedly for information about the Marion facility, 15 miles east of Carbondale, where nine patients died in surgery from October 2006 to March 2007. That was more than four times the expected rate.
G&P
Here are two links to the bill:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
They both show the text as I stated. Please show a link to the bill from a government site that shows any missing text from Section 141. Otherwise retract your post.
All I asked was for you to show the text in the bill to back up your statement. You obviously could not do that so your statement is bogus at this point, just more fear-mongering.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, that's obviously a gross misconduct of medecine. It's the same as someone posting info about people dying because of the current private insurance system and extrapolating it to represent your whole system. I'm assuming you wouldn't buy that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Some people do go but it's a small number. It's another one of your talking points.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The Most Outrageous U.S. Lies About Global Healthcare | Foreign Policy
Usually the healhcare program picks up the bill for any procedures done elsewhere so that the person does not experience financial hardship to boot. It matters not whethere you are a McDonald's employee or the CEO of Molson, you get cared for.Quote:
In general, Canadians are not flocking south for health care, and for good reason. According to a report from the Fraser Institute, a prominent Canadian think tank, both the Canadian and U.S. governments spend about 7 percent of their GDPs on health-care costs. (The United States, including private expenditure, spends about 16 percent of GDP on health care.) But all Canadians are covered for all medical care, plus some prescription drug costs. In the United States, 47 million are uninsured, and hundreds of thousands declare bankruptcy every year due to medical bills.
There are wait times in Canada, but nobody waits for emergency surgery; McConnell's claim about bypass patients is untrue. In 2007, a non-emergency patient in Ontario waited about 61 days for elective bypass surgery, according to Canada's health service. Such collected data is not made public in the United States.
If you read the text, the VA has in place a process to certify doctors, apparently the ball was dropped on this end. Why hire a surgeon with a troubled past? Why not do the due diligence that is already should be SOP? Because when you pay way below the market rate for a professional, you will not get qualified candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Kos: State of the Nation)
Partnership Applauds Obama's 'No Cost-Sharing' Protections for Preventive ServicesQuote:
23 (1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERV
24 ICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the es
25 sential benefits package for preventive items and
1 services (as specified under the benefit standards),
2 including well baby and well child care.
Quote:
A study by Partnership for Prevention's National Commission on Prevention Priorities found that increased utilization of just five clinical preventive services - daily aspirin use, tobacco cessation counseling, adult pneumococcal immunization, and breast and colon cancer screening - would save an additional 100,000 lives a year, while all five services either save money or are cost-effective.
This is very good and the Obama administration should be pointing this out.
G&P
You'd have to prove that cause/effect relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You should consider that we ARE the market. We're the biggest on the block. We're the last western nation to guard our health care profits. So, once THIS market goes, there ain't no other. Therefore, the guy who would have become a doctor, will become a banker...
Consequently, the people who become doctors will be those who want to SAVE people instead of get rich. Frankly, I'd rather have the former.
excon
That is exactly what happened at the Marion Il VA.
Physician pay is limited by congress.
Salary Table 2007-CIN
Grade 15 step 10 $142,000
Physician Compensation Data, Doctor Salary, Physician Pay | Cejka Search
Private sector general surgery
Start at about $223,000 median $338,000
--------------------------------------
Tell me what qualified general surgeon with experience [ remember 4 years medical school age 26, and at least 5 years residency age 31 if not more ] would work at $81,000 less than the startting salary of a surgeon just out of training? Remember that VA salary is regardless if you do 10 surgeries a month or 50.
G&P
inthebox,
Dude, why do you have so much spacing in your posts? It's like 45 lines with only 10 lines of text. Why?
You don't think doctors should get compensated for at least 7 years of school and training, this is AFTER a college degree. Add the fact that many willl have 6 figure debt, be close if not over 30? Add the fact that at any time in your career you are statistically likely to get sued frivoulously and loose all that you have ever worked for. Even suits that are dropped take time and legal costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It is arrogant attitudes like your's and Obama's to assume that doctors should not get paid or think you know how to do their job better than doctor's do.
RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama: Doctors Taking Tonsils Out For Money Instead Of Diagnosing It As Allergies
News from the American College of Surgeons: Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President ObamaQuote:
"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.
It is this arrogance coupled with stupidity that makes me, and apparently more and more Americans, not trust one word this president says. And you expect him to direct your healthcare?Quote:
Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient
G&P
Is that your reply? To the information I link to prove my point? Can you logically counterpoint with facts and information? I won't change my style to accommodate you because I find one long paragraph with multiple points tedious.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
When I said we're the market, I meant that WE'RE THE MARKET. When the change comes, it'll ALL change. Schools won't make fortunes for training doctors any more. Banks won't make fortunes loaning money to future doctors any more. Lawyers won't sue doctors any more if they can't get paid.
It won't cost much to become a doctor anymore, because doctors won't be making the big bucks...
I have nothing against doctors, and I'm not arrogant at all. It IS true, that medical school costs a lot of money... I just think they ought to wait longer than two weeks before they earn it all back. (That's a joke.)
I suppose I could call YOU arrogant, if you think I want to spend $.75 cents of every dollar I make on health care, which is where it'll be in 10 years if we do NOTHING, instead of the $.25 cents I spend today.
For YOU to want ME, and your fellow Americans to suffer THAT fate, is beyond arrogance.
excon
Where do you get this figure?Quote:
Suppose I could call YOU arrogant, if you think I want to spend $.75 cents of every dollar I make on health care, which is where it'll be in 10 years if we do NOTHING, instead of the $.25 cents I spend today.
And no one is FORCING YOU to spend YOUR MONEY in any particular way. Now the government can take your money in the form of taxes, and spend your money any way they see fit. Where is your outrage over that?
G&P
And what do you base this prediction on? What has the cost of colllege done in the last several decades?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
College tuition is far outpacing the cost of living - Aug. 20, 2008
Lawyers sue doctors to get money from the MALPRACTICE INSURERS, as well as the doctor, if that doctor has any assets. And lawyers do such a good job that this happens.
St. Paul Cos. Exits Medical Malpractice Insurance - The New York Times
Oh BTW, thinking that a lawyer won't sue is thinking a scorpion won't sting,
The Scorpion and the Frog
G&P
Hello in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
For a righty, you don't understand the market very well. How many students will the high priced medical schools attract if the doctors they produce CAN'T make money?? How many lawyer will sue, if they CAN'T make money??
When the market goes, ALL the supporting services will go too.
excon
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
That wasn't my reply.
It was a comment. Your style make sa thread much
Longer than it needs be.
No need to accommodate me I guess.
Busy now, may reply later.
Me,
NK.
LOL, I just posted a brand new article, it wasn't me making the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Um, I said "and footing the bill."Quote:
Usually the healhcare program picks up the bill for any procedures done elsewhere so that the person does not experience financial hardship to boot. It matters not whethere you are a McDonald's employee or the CEO of Molson, you get cared for.
Look at the people who run the US Postal Service.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
They get paid less than the people who do similar jobs at DHL, UPS and Federal Express.
The US Postal Service is courting bankruptcy. They are cutting services (5 days of delivery instead of 6), cutting the number of post offices, cutting hours, cutting the number of mail boxes (by 1/2 according to one report I read) and will again be raising the price of stamps.
If you pay people less than other similar businesses will, you will get less competent employees, and they will run your business into the ground.
Please keep in mind that Obama's model for private insurance being able to compete with the "public option" was the Postal Service and it's competition with DHL, FEDEX and UPS. But the Postal Service is FAILING, and a huge part of that failure is due to the incompetence of the cut-rate-wage employees. That, and the general incompetence, inefficiency and waste of the Federal government.
You wanted proof of the cause and effect of wages to competence: here it is.
Elliot
TANSTAAFLQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Doctors, even those who are completely altruistic in their desire to help others, still have to pay the mortgage and utility bills. Give them the choice between a job that pays well and one that doesn't, even the most altruistic person will bow to inevitability and take the job that pays.
That's why Canada has a shortage of doctors right now. So does the UK. And France. And Cuba. And Denmark. And Russia. And Poland. And Japan. And pretty much every other nation that has nationalized health care. (Norway, interestingly enough doesn't have a shortage, and their's the closest to a private health care system still left in Europe.)
We don't.
But I know, I know, profits are bad. Doctors have to be dirt poor and earn no money in order to be considered good guys. Otherwise, they're just in it for the profits and must be evil.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Well, if the government is so incompetent, why are you worried about a public option?
excon
Situation Critical: U.S. ERs Face Shortage of Doctors - ABC NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Situation Critical: U.S. ERs Face Shortage of Doctors
ANALYSIS-Shortage of doctors could damage healthcare reform | Reuters
Quote:
ANALYSIS-Shortage of doctors could damage healthcare reform
Country facing shortage of doctors - WTHR | Indianapolis
Quote:
the country is facing a growing shortage of family doctors.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I don't know. In the East you have private toll roads... I even drove on one... I'm sure it was built and run by highly paid private workers... But, it was just as smoooooooothe as any public road I've been on...
So, what's your point?
excon
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As a matter of fact, one of the ideas being floated by Obama was to make the tuition at medical schools free in order to continue to attract med students. That's cause Obama knows that if he stops hospitals from paying top dollar for their employees and cuts reimbursement rates, they will lose their best medical staff. So he's creating an incentive for them. He forsees the same loss of services that you are predicting, excon, and he knows it is inevitable under his proposed system of nationalized health care.
The problem with his solution is two-fold.
1) Who's will foot the bill for the free medical school?
2) If Medical school is free, by what standard will the wheat be cut from the chaff among candidates?
The answer to the first problem is obvious. WE WILL BE PAYING FOR IT IN HIGHER TAXES. Not only would we have to support the bloated bureaucracy of the government medical system, which drives the price of medical care anywhere from 35% to 500% higher than the private systems, but we will also have to support the cost of EDUCATING these doctors.
The second problem needs to be explained a bit further.
Part of the way that medical schools decide who are the best candidates are academic grades. Getting into medical school is academically hard for a reason. But there is another method they use... the cost of medical school. If a student doesn't believe that they will be a good enough doctor to make enough money to pay back his very high student loans, chances are he'll choose not to go to medical school. I didn't think I would be a very good doctor, even though I had pretty decent grades and would have been accepted into any number of medical schools. I became a banker instead. My brother did think so, and he's a radiologist. The COST of a medical school education keeps out some of the chaff and only lets in the wheat. It is not a perfect system by any means, but it works pretty well.
If you eliminate the COST of medical school, you are eliminating one of the ways that medical schools keep out less qualified practitioners. The result will be an increase in less qualified practitioners. If you combine that with salary capping and lower reimbursement rates for doctors, what you get is a migration of highly qualified candidates OUT of medicine, and a migration of less qualified candidates INTO medicine. Within a decade, you get a medical system that is MEDIOCRE at best, and downright tragic at worst.
Yes, lowering medical school costs may also allow some very qualified candidates who would not otherwise be able to afford medical school into the system. And that might be a good thing. But there is another factor that is often overlooked... the length and difficulty of an extended medical education.
Lawyers go to school for 4 years and then make top dollar at some law firm, corporate interest or in private practice. But doctors go to school for 4 years. Then they have internships for between 1 and 3 years, depending on specialty. Then they become Residents. Then they take boards which take a year to study for. Then they go into fellowships for several years to practice their specialty. During all this time, they are working DOG hours (36-hour shifts, long on-call periods, etc.) and getting paid relatively low. We're talking about a 10-12 year medical education before the doctor is ready to make any serious money. There's a huge sacrifice in Medicine that doesn't exist in Law or Accounting or even Dentistry.
Now... Let's say you're a poor person who has been interested in medicine since you were 6 years old. You want to help people. You are smart and have good grades. But you find out that you can't afford medical school. You are disappointed, but life's full of little disappointments, and you learn to go on in some other field of endeavour.
Then you find out that medical schools are going to be free. You are excited to be able to go. You figure, in a few years, after a long and hard education, you'll be able to write your own ticket.
Then you find out that it is going to take you 12 years of education before you can "write your own ticket" after all. And even after that 12-year period of working like a slave for what in your career path is considered minimum wage, you have now been told that your salary will STILL be limited by the government, and won't be all that high after all.
On the other hand, you can get into lawschool just as easily and be making top dollar in 4 years. You might want to help people through medicine, but you don't want to be poor in order to do it. You can help more people as a rich attorney making donations to large charities than you can as a doctor working 60 hour weeks for no pay.
What do you do?
The chance of getting a few more VERY ALTRUISTIC and very qualified poor people to go to med school does not offset the number of middle-class and upper-class people who are also highly qualified who will choose NOT to go into medicine in the new environment.
This very problem has plagued the UK medical system since the 1940s and 1950s, and they still haven't figured out how to counter it without privatizing the system. France has similar problem, as do most European countries. Canada has seen a migration of medical talent from Canada to the USA because the pay is better. All of this has been documented in various studies. And it WILL happen here if we let Obama have his way.
Elliot
Hello again, El:
You're very good at hyping conservative ideology. However, as we learned from the Bush and Reagan years, when put into actual practice, it fails.
I don't disagree that many people WON'T become doctors because they can no longer get rich. I DO disagree that the new class of doctors pursuing the field will be less qualified that their predecessors.
excon
I'm worried because it isn't going to be an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The way this is all being set up, it will FORCE people into the public "option". Here's how:
1) Anyone who doesn't have private health care in the year in which the "public option" is made available will not be allowed to obntain private health insurance. They will be FORCED to take the public option.
2) Any companies with more than $750K in revenues (which is most small businesses) that do not offer private insurance to their employees will be forced to either offer the public option or will be forced to pay a 7.5% non-insurance tax (ostensibly to cover the cost to the government for insuring all those employees). The costs of EITHER obtaining private insurance that they can't afford OR being forced to pay the non-insurance tax will force many small businesses out of business. That will force their employees and themselves onto the public option by din't of the fact that they are uninsured (see #1).
3) By making medical insurance a taxable item, the government will be driving the cost of private health insurance up, forcing many individuals and businesses to go with the government option because it will be the only way to manage costs.
4) By regulating the private insurance companies up the wazoo, the government is driving the cost of private insurance through the roof. Businesses and individuals that have to choose between the artificially inflated prices of private insurance caused by that regulation or the public option will choose the public option... because of non-market forces that are driving private insurance costs.
In short, the government has stacked the deck. They control the means of supply via regulation the laws by which the private insurance companies and private businesses must operate.
So it is not that people will CHOOSE the public option. It's that they won't have any choice at all, because the government will be FORCING them to take the government option.
The CBO estimated that something like 125 MILLION Americans will be FORCED off their private health insurance and into the public option against their will on day one that the legislation takes effect. That's roughly 41% of the US population.
So... what worries me is not that there will be FAIR competition between the government and the private sector. What worries me is that there WON'T BE fair competition between the government and the private sector, because the government has stacked the deck.
You want real competition in medical insurance? Open up inter-state commerce between insurance companies like we have with auto-insurance. Allow portability of medical insurance. Allow build-your-own-insurance planning the way we do with auto insurance and life insurance. Create REAL competition between the insurance companies.
You want real competition between the government and private insurance? Stop the government from stacking the deck with tax laws over small businesses and regulation over the insurance industry. Until then there is no competition, there is only the power of government over individuals and private companies.
Why am I worried about a public option? Because it ain't going to be optional.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Really? When did the Reagan policies fail? Reagan caused the largest period of economic growth in our history, with personal wealth increasing at a massive rate never before seen in history. And Bush II pulled us out of a massive recession caused by Clinton and the 9/11 attacks in record time, DESPITE the actions of the Dems in fighting those policies.
Tell it to the Canadians, the French, the Brits, the Poles, the Checks, the Swiss, the Spanish, etc.Quote:
I don't disagree that many people WON'T become doctors because they can no longer get rich. I DO disagree that the new class of doctors pursuing the field will be less qualified that their predecessors.
Excon
All of them have issues with both the quantity and the quality of the doctors in their countries.
Whereas we have the best doctors in the world, and plenty of them.
So you can disagree all you like. You're still wrong.
Elliot
Excon,
Have you ever wondered why rich doctors get rich?
It probably has something to do with their compentence. They are GOOD at their jobs, and they become rich doing those jobs.
Take away the ability to become rich, and all you are left with are mediocre doctors who do a mediocre job for mediocre pay. While the people who are really good go on to do something else for a living and get rich doing it.
It's called competition. While it is true that employees have to compete for the best jobs, you seem to forget that employers have to compete for the best-qualified employees. Take away their ability to compete, and they won't get the best. The best will go just elsewhere because they ARE the best and can afford to.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It's like I was telling in, when our market goes, there's no elsewhere to go. They could try banking. They could use some of the "best".
excon
You twisted talking about alternative careQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Into being sick and begging pg11
Hello again, zip:Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
I don't know about the twisting part, but I couldn't find it on page 11. If I did, when I did it, it WAS in context with the general conversation going on at that time...
But, if you're saying that I don't argue fair, don't argue with me then. I got my hands full enough trying to correct the wrong ones we already got.
excon
As you point out, they will simply NOT GO INTO MEDICINE, and instead go into other industries, like law, banking, accounting, computers, etc. Anything that pays better than medicine. They will just exit medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Thanks for proving my point for me.
I'll take it as another win, thanks.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You have to win all sides before you can claim victory... The part you're missing, is that people who would have had to work for Wal Mart, are going to be able to go to medical school. Cause being a doctor, even under socialized medicine will still pay better.
Sorry, Wolverine. Wrong again.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 AM. |