Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It has tornadoes instead.

We have both, at once.

 d-usa wrote:
We have both, at once.

And during a blizzard...right??

No, that would have been excessive even during our standard.

I do remember sitting in the living room watching the weather for the thunderstorms and tornadoes when the house started to shake. Silly state.

I oppose the concept that I need to pay for your Viagra or your wife's/gf's birth control.

So you oppose taxes and all forms of insurance, gotcha.

Besides, we are talking about Quakenados now and how women are lazier than men and how gays are a bigger thread than Islam to our freedoms. Keep up please.

I oppose the concept of paying for his birth control or his wife/ gf's Viagra as well.
Clubbing together to buy roads bridges and community infrastructure is one thing but being forced to buy someone else's elective things that are not that expensive on their own is quite another.

 Manchu wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So yes I'd support a single payer system

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course those who want to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something actually worthwhile, like a Canadaian system.

 whembly wrote:
Remember, even with the ACA implementation...it's NOTHING like the Canadian/NHS model.

It's nice to see conservatives supporting nationalized health care initiatives. Mmm, such sincerity.

Yes,I feel this way too. I'm sure once Conservatives managed to repeal Obamacare, the very next thing passed would be single payer.

 whembly wrote:
One idea is to allow specific insurance packages to be sold across state line (did you know that?).

Another is to allow people to create their own insurance pool by job nationally. (can't do that now effectively, because it only stays in the state).

Those things don't exist as alternatives to ACA. They're minor reforms at best, that could be bolted on to it at any time.

So as far alternatives to ACA go it's pretty weaksauce.

Or, let's go the Canadian route.

But you can't just keep saying that, pretending it's a realistic possibility. When dealing with legislation that's actually in place, it's just fething lazy to compare it to policy that exists in the happy land of unicorns and streets of fairy floss. You have to talk about the legislation in place in comparison to the actual plausible alternatives.

And given the growth of healthcare costs, you need to get with solving this problem sooner rather than later. ACA is certainly imperfect, but compared to the alternatives, it has the very massive advantage of actually being a thing that exists.

Fact of the matter, the ACA act is a bad policy, used for political gain. There's no altruism here.

Opposition to ACA is led by people who are grossly disingenuous, who lied as a regular matter of course, to the point where we got Fraz in this thread telling the most ludicrous nonsense, somehow having come to believe that ACA will improve the profits of private health insurers (when by the laws of ACA that is impossible).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's so polarized right now, I don't think we can truly go to the Canadian/NHS system.

Thankyou for accepting that.

What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).

And if you then went the last step and decoupled healthcare from employers, so that private individuals were free to go out and pick out the plan they wanted for themselves... well then you'd have a system.

Of course, ACA is in a lot of ways a step towards that.

Okay... seb... (or anyone else for that matter) let's dial back a bit.

Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?

whembly wrote:Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?

Still not quite.

In Canada, where multiple treatment options are available, the patient is given considerable control over the decision of which treatment option to choose. While ACA gives everyone access to insurance, when multiple treatment options are available, my understanding is that it will still be the for-profit insurance company making the decision about which treatment option is chosen.

Unless I'm wrong, and the ACA lets the patient select their own treatment?

 whembly wrote:
Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?

No. But as you yourself have said, you can't just swap from one system to another overnight.

On the whole, I do believe that the expansion of coverage, of stopping insurers from rejecting coverage based on a pre-existing condition, and the control on insurers administration as no more than 20% of total receipts (15% for larger insurers) are good steps forward. And the cost control measures aren't just good, but absolutely necessary to the future financial health of your country.

Now, as far as reforms go this was long overdue, and given that it's probably been needed since about the 1970s it could have been much more far reaching. But given the amount of lobbyist dollars in healthcare and the shamelessly partisan way the Republicans attacked the bill, it was probably about as much as was ever going to be achieved.

The issue now is whether you can build on those reforms and undertake new reforms. It would be great if you could take further steps to expand medicare like you suggested to provide a genuinely universal base level of healthcare, introduce even more competition in insurance (eventually getting to a point where people pick their own insurers), and further cost controls that limit overtreatment. Given the nonsense in this thread (people still having no idea what ACA actually does, people pretending that you can just remove ACA and that will somehow make other reforms more likely) that is unfortunately quite unlikely.

 d-usa wrote:
So you oppose taxes and all forms of insurance, gotcha.

Besides, we are talking about Quakenados now and how women are lazier than men and how gays are a bigger thread than Islam to our freedoms. Keep up please.

Well, if we can just add in wildfires we could have quakenadowildfires. Throw in some killer drop bears and you have your average spring day in Australia.

Still better than Pomona.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So yes I'd support a single payer system

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course those who want to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something actually worthwhile, like a Canadaian system.

 whembly wrote:
Remember, even with the ACA implementation...it's NOTHING like the Canadian/NHS model.

It's nice to see conservatives supporting nationalized health care initiatives. Mmm, such sincerity.

Yes,I feel this way too. I'm sure once Conservatives managed to repeal Obamacare, the very next thing passed would be single payer.

No bureaucracy is ever gotten rid of here...ever. We still have the honey subsidy for the World War I. Oh noes we've got to sacrifice to keep the Kaiser at bay!

In other news (seriously) one of the key figures in the GSA scandal was just reinstated. A court ruled they couldn't fire him.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Do you believe that the ACA reform, being that now everyone needs to be insured, now recieve the same benefits similar to what you guys have(or in Canada/NHS)?

Still not quite.

Correct.

In Canada, where multiple treatment options are available, the patient is given considerable control over the decision of which treatment option to choose

Okay... makes sense...

. While ACA gives everyone access to insurance,

Correct.

]when multiple treatment options are available, my understanding is that it will still be the for-profit insurance company making the decision about which treatment option is chosen.

You're right... and your're wrong.

Right: There are government sponsored plans (in addition to ACA's exchange) where the plan administrators determines what is covered or not... you know about this head of time when you sign up for such plans.

Wrong (but sorta right): Employer/Union based plans.... It's the EMPLOYER/UNION who defines the benefits (what's covered) based on industry standards, State Laws and individual Employer/Union needs. Then it's the plan administrators to manage plan.

So, when covered, we're most likely to have the same sort of treatment options that you see (sometimes more, sometimes less)... it's all fluid.

Unless I'm wrong, and the ACA lets the patient select their own treatment?

That was never the problem... ACA doesn't "do" that. Here's some good things:
Pre-existing conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Age 26: Insurers would be required to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26

Doughnut Hole: Under current law, Medicare stops covering drug costs after a plan and beneficiary have spent more than $2,830 on prescription drugs. It starts paying again after an individual’s out-of-pocket expenses exceed $4,550. Called the doughnut hole, it will be closed by 2020.

People forget about this: People with existing health insurance can keep it. Businesses prefer to offer a tax-free benefit like health insurance to attract good workers. That won't change under Obamacare. The bad thing is that ACA makes structural changes that may incur additional costs, if the workers want to keep the same plan.

There are few others... here's the bad things derived from the ACA:
If you don't buy insurance, you're taxed: This is bad because the poor, wellfare reciepient are now forced to get insurance (which is a good thing), here's the catch... most of those people though they'd get it for free... and that's not the case. With an already limited cash flow, they'll be forced to shift some of that to purchase heavily subsidized insurance (usually $50-$250 by some estimates). That may not seem a lot... but, it is... and they're NOW starting to see that.

Insurance Premiums are going up at a faster rate the pre-ACA. The additional costs will not just be taken out of the corporation's bank account, their cost will be transfered to the consumers.

Donut closing: Pharmaceutical companies will pay an extra $84.8 billion in fees over the next ten years to pay for closing the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D. This will raise drug costs if they pass this onto consumers.

Employment hours are shifting: More and more, we're hearing that businesses are adjusting their employee's hours to avoid being forced to provide insurance.

Point being here... all those supposed "good things"...does incur costs and the vast majoring of the burden will fall onto the consumers or via more tax revenue. This is not a magic wand to "fix" everything.

Here's one that is constantly being ignored:
-Primary Care Doctors and Specialty Doctors do NOT have to take everyone who comes in the door. The Medicare reimbursement rates are dropping fast... what that means is that these doctors will DROP the Medicare patients from their office, thus affecting care to those on Medicare. While it's true that the ACA does CHANGE the level of Care... it absolutely changes the ACCESS to the providers.

The absolute BIGGEST issue I have with the ACA bill... is that it tries to be a "one-sized fit all" solution. What they should of done is pass a bill for each good thing (ie, pre-existing condition, donut hole fix, etc) on an individual basis... incrementally fixing the problem at hand.

We STILL don't know what the rules and regulations will be untill 2014 and again 2016... and that fething SCARES the providers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

The issue now is whether you can build on those reforms and undertake new reforms. It would be great if you could take further steps to expand medicare like you suggested to provide a genuinely universal base level of healthcare, introduce even more competition in insurance (eventually getting to a point where people pick their own insurers), and further cost controls that limit overtreatment. Given the nonsense in this thread (people still having no idea what ACA actually does, people pretending that you can just remove ACA and that will somehow make other reforms more likely) that is unfortunately quite unlikely.

That's a good point...we'll see right?

I just saw something this morning... help me out... what is it called when you STOP receiving any income, and continue to run your business as normal (paying bills/payroll/etc)... and determine how many days you can keep your doors open?

My company? We can do that just over 300 days...

The next local hospital system 14 days...

The next one after that, 2 days.

We've never seen that before... and apparently it's epidemic around the states.

With what the economy, raising premiums, ACA... it wouldn't take much to bring those numbers down even further.

What this meas is that, if thing don't improve... we could be facing massive closures of hospitals system around the US... thus, overloading the big hospital systems. If that happen, we may get to the point where it's politically possible for Government takeover and implementation of Single-Payer like Canada.

Buckle your seat belt guys. It's going to be bumpy.

 whembly wrote:

What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).

You do realize that actually is part of ACA, sort of, right? The ACA sets up the Public Option run by an NPO. Current rumors target GEHA, who currently run a nonprofit health insurance group for federal employees. (I chose GEHA, incidentally, when I became a fed.) The idea being that the larger the group of insured people, the better that groups representatives (i.e., the insurance company) are able to negotiate prices with medical groups. The better the negotiated prices, the lower the premiums need to be. The lower the premiums need to be, the more people can pay for it. Frankly, they can't get this going fast enough.


As to "everyone should be insured", I agree that forcing people to buy insurance from a private insurer is adding to the problem. (Hence why I'd really love for them to get that public option going...) However, in the end what it does do is help reduce prices by reducing the costs of non-payers in medical care. Right now, if someone with no insurance goes to a hospital or emergency room and they don't (or can't) pay, the costs get spread around to everyone else that DOES pay. So not only are you paying in tax dollars for the work to get done, you're paying in YOUR insurance for the private insurance companies to continue to pad their bottom lines. (You don't think they're going to eat that cost, do you?) At least by having everyone insured (which again, I would vastly prefer being done through a public group option, or single payer option, either one), you reduce (since I doubt we will eliminate) the number of people whose costs end up getting spread around to everyone else.

ACA isn't a fix-all. It's not a single payer, it's not nationalized health care. But ACA does a lot of good, and gets a lot of people the help that they need. Prior to ACA, it wasn't completely uncommon for a person to be diagnosed with an longterm illness (say, cancer), get immediately dropped from their insurance (because companies don't want to pay for expensive long term treatment), and then be competely unable to find new insurance thanks to that "preexisting condition" nonsense. It was basically a death sentence. That is not, and shouldn't be, acceptable. And yet prior to ACA, it was. I'm frankly unsure how anyone could be against ACA at this point, knowing what we would be going back to. If you say ACA doesn't do enough, that's fine. I agree that it isn't an ideal solution (not that those actually exist in reality). I disagree that it's a waste and no good at all. I also disagree that we need to repeal it before we can move on to other more reasonable solutions. I think, if anything, speeding a public option for public health care is the answer. Sure, it will be costly in the immediate, but I'm not sure how else people plan to get anything past the current medical lobbies. They spend something like 10x the amount of the defense industry lobbying anything related to health care. Do you (not you specifically whembly) honestly think there is any chance of sudden, cheap, radical change when they have so much influence?

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).

Spoiler:

You do realize that actually is part of ACA, sort of, right? The ACA sets up the Public Option run by an NPO. Current rumors target GEHA, who currently run a nonprofit health insurance group for federal employees. (I chose GEHA, incidentally, when I became a fed.) The idea being that the larger the group of insured people, the better that groups representatives (i.e., the insurance company) are able to negotiate prices with medical groups. The better the negotiated prices, the lower the premiums need to be. The lower the premiums need to be, the more people can pay for it. Frankly, they can't get this going fast enough.


As to "everyone should be insured", I agree that forcing people to buy insurance from a private insurer is adding to the problem. (Hence why I'd really love for them to get that public option going...) However, in the end what it does do is help reduce prices by reducing the costs of non-payers in medical care. Right now, if someone with no insurance goes to a hospital or emergency room and they don't (or can't) pay, the costs get spread around to everyone else that DOES pay. So not only are you paying in tax dollars for the work to get done, you're paying in YOUR insurance for the private insurance companies to continue to pad their bottom lines. (You don't think they're going to eat that cost, do you?) At least by having everyone insured (which again, I would vastly prefer being done through a public group option, or single payer option, either one), you reduce (since I doubt we will eliminate) the number of people whose costs end up getting spread around to everyone else.

ACA isn't a fix-all. It's not a single payer, it's not nationalized health care. But ACA does a lot of good, and gets a lot of people the help that they need. Prior to ACA, it wasn't completely uncommon for a person to be diagnosed with an longterm illness (say, cancer), get immediately dropped from their insurance (because companies don't want to pay for expensive long term treatment), and then be competely unable to find new insurance thanks to that "preexisting condition" nonsense. It was basically a death sentence. That is not, and shouldn't be, acceptable. And yet prior to ACA, it was. I'm frankly unsure how anyone could be against ACA at this point, knowing what we would be going back to. If you say ACA doesn't do enough, that's fine. I agree that it isn't an ideal solution (not that those actually exist in reality). I disagree that it's a waste and no good at all. I also disagree that we need to repeal it before we can move on to other more reasonable solutions. I think, if anything, speeding a public option for public health care is the answer. Sure, it will be costly in the immediate, but I'm not sure how else people plan to get anything past the current medical lobbies. They spend something like 10x the amount of the defense industry lobbying anything related to health care.

Do you (not you specifically whembly) honestly think there is any chance of sudden, cheap, radical change when they have so much influence?

If we have a catastrophe, like I mentioned in previous post... yes.

I wasn't ignoring the fact that there's some good things within ACA (I've listed some of them).

My soapbox , is that there's got to be a better way.

 whembly wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What I can possible see that they raise taxes to fully expand Medicare to include everyone (the states drop Medicaid), which is basically the Canadian/NHS system ... AND allow for private insurances to offer cadillac plans (Unions, Employer-based Plans, etc).

Spoiler:

You do realize that actually is part of ACA, sort of, right? The ACA sets up the Public Option run by an NPO. Current rumors target GEHA, who currently run a nonprofit health insurance group for federal employees. (I chose GEHA, incidentally, when I became a fed.) The idea being that the larger the group of insured people, the better that groups representatives (i.e., the insurance company) are able to negotiate prices with medical groups. The better the negotiated prices, the lower the premiums need to be. The lower the premiums need to be, the more people can pay for it. Frankly, they can't get this going fast enough.


As to "everyone should be insured", I agree that forcing people to buy insurance from a private insurer is adding to the problem. (Hence why I'd really love for them to get that public option going...) However, in the end what it does do is help reduce prices by reducing the costs of non-payers in medical care. Right now, if someone with no insurance goes to a hospital or emergency room and they don't (or can't) pay, the costs get spread around to everyone else that DOES pay. So not only are you paying in tax dollars for the work to get done, you're paying in YOUR insurance for the private insurance companies to continue to pad their bottom lines. (You don't think they're going to eat that cost, do you?) At least by having everyone insured (which again, I would vastly prefer being done through a public group option, or single payer option, either one), you reduce (since I doubt we will eliminate) the number of people whose costs end up getting spread around to everyone else.

ACA isn't a fix-all. It's not a single payer, it's not nationalized health care. But ACA does a lot of good, and gets a lot of people the help that they need. Prior to ACA, it wasn't completely uncommon for a person to be diagnosed with an longterm illness (say, cancer), get immediately dropped from their insurance (because companies don't want to pay for expensive long term treatment), and then be competely unable to find new insurance thanks to that "preexisting condition" nonsense. It was basically a death sentence. That is not, and shouldn't be, acceptable. And yet prior to ACA, it was. I'm frankly unsure how anyone could be against ACA at this point, knowing what we would be going back to. If you say ACA doesn't do enough, that's fine. I agree that it isn't an ideal solution (not that those actually exist in reality). I disagree that it's a waste and no good at all. I also disagree that we need to repeal it before we can move on to other more reasonable solutions. I think, if anything, speeding a public option for public health care is the answer. Sure, it will be costly in the immediate, but I'm not sure how else people plan to get anything past the current medical lobbies. They spend something like 10x the amount of the defense industry lobbying anything related to health care.

Do you (not you specifically whembly) honestly think there is any chance of sudden, cheap, radical change when they have so much influence?

If we have a catastrophe, like I mentioned in previous post... yes.

I wasn't ignoring the fact that there's some good things within ACA (I've listed some of them).

My soapbox , is that there's got to be a better way.

I really should have separated the two paragraphs of my post better, as really only the public option paragraph was directed at your post specifically (the one about raising taxes to include everyone in Medicare). Sorry I couldn't be more clear. I read your post listing the good of ACA and agree, for instance, even if I don't agree completely with your list of drawbacks. I frankly don't care if the insurance agencies are scared. They should be. With any luck For-Profit health insurance will become a gross minority of people in my lifetime.

I'm just not sure there actually is a better way. Not with the rampant bickering in the legislature (as evinced by this thread's original topic), the gross mischaracterization of univsersal health care as communism, and the beyond disgusting amount of money thrown at both sides of an incompetantly corrupt Congress by the medical lobbying groups. To be honest, I don't even see the doomsday scenario you created being enough to spur national healthcare here. There is simply too much of a cognitive dissonance throughout many parts of the country when it comes to "what THEY want", with "THEY" usually being a group they're part of but refuse to accept membership in. I can only think back to a piece on socialized health care where the reporter went around deeply poor areas (of the south, majorly :-\ ) and people continually railed against socialized health care while being on medicaid or medicaire THEMSELVES. "Oh, well I deserve it!" Too many of those sorts of people (who are all over) would simply still refuse to see the good of socialized or governmental health care, unless it was the last thing between them and death.

Do I want there to be a quick solution to the health care mess? Absolutely I do. But I also want to go into space and meet aliens. Have a feeling I'll see the second before I see the first.

 streamdragon wrote:


I really should have separated the two paragraphs of my post better, as really only the public option paragraph was directed at your post specifically (the one about raising taxes to include everyone in Medicare). Sorry I couldn't be more clear. I read your post listing the good of ACA and agree, for instance, even if I don't agree completely with your list of drawbacks. I frankly don't care if the insurance agencies are scared. They should be. With any luck For-Profit health insurance will become a gross minority of people in my lifetime.

No problemo dude.

The "folks are scared" bit are not really the insurance agencies... but the providers. Doctor's office, Specialist, Hospital Organization in general...

I'm just not sure there actually is a better way. Not with the rampant bickering in the legislature (as evinced by this thread's original topic), the gross mischaracterization of univsersal health care as communism, and the beyond disgusting amount of money thrown at both sides of an incompetantly corrupt Congress by the medical lobbying groups. To be honest, I don't even see the doomsday scenario you created being enough to spur national healthcare here. There is simply too much of a cognitive dissonance throughout many parts of the country when it comes to "what THEY want", with "THEY" usually being a group they're part of but refuse to accept membership in. I can only think back to a piece on socialized health care where the reporter went around deeply poor areas (of the south, majorly :-\ ) and people continually railed against socialized health care while being on medicaid or medicaire THEMSELVES. "Oh, well I deserve it!" Too many of those sorts of people (who are all over) would simply still refuse to see the good of socialized or governmental health care, unless it was the last thing between them and death.

That's a fair point...

I don't think I'm in the minority as such... (ya'll think I'm a right-wing nutso... but, hey, I'm your right-wing nutso ). But if we were actually OFFERED a system similar to the Canadian model, not only I, but most healthcare providers would jump on that like a starving fat kid on Krispy Kreme donuts.

Do I want there to be a quick solution to the health care mess? Absolutely I do. But I also want to go into space and meet aliens. Have a feeling I'll see the second before I see the first.

Speaking of those Oklahoma politicains... just show them this:

 Manchu wrote:
The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.

The first civil war had more to do with states rights than slavery, but you can keep ignoring Tariff taxes and clashing economic policies if you like.

The Civil War was about slavery. Please stop kidding yourself.

State rights was so important to them, they wouldn't let the states in the confederacy ban slavery.

 Manchu wrote:
The Civil War was about slavery. Please stop kidding yourself.

Total Bullocks! We all knwo the Civil War started when some Yankees fans took a trip to North Carolina. Their accents were so atrocious war was declared just to keep 'Yous Guys' out.

That's about as plausible as saying it was about states rights.

 Manchu wrote:
That's about as plausible as saying it was about states rights.

John Bell Hood finds your lack of faith...disturbing.

R3con wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.

The first civil war had more to do with states rights than slavery, but you can keep ignoring Tariff taxes and clashing economic policies if you like.

Yeah, the states' right to keep slaves.

My main opposition to the ACA is that it is not in fact affordable. What is the point in making sure people can not be denied coverage if those very people will be unable to afford the coverage?

As far as I know, medical care is available to anyone, especially if they can afford it. medical insurance on the other hand is a big scam and waste of time for most, and in the hands of the government even more so.

I admit the capitalist system we're under now is useful at times, i scrimped, saved and got my eye surgery done by one of the best doctors in the country with 0 wait. Screening, Pre Operation appointment, surgery, post op. Total time from contacting the doctor to the post op (this coming monday) no more then a month.

And this has nothing to do with our Republican Governor betting on the wrong horse for Presidential election and not applying for a big pile of federal money, right?

Sometimes I hate living in this state. Another reason is that straight party-line votes resulted in an Dentist being elected State Superintendent of Public Education....

If I didn't make so much money here, I'd move back to Japan.

 agnosto wrote:


Sometimes I hate living in this state. Another reason is that straight party-line votes resulted in an Dentist being elected State Superintendent of Public Education....

Dentists are doctors................ Well they can make as much.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I admit the capitalist system we're under now is useful at times, i scrimped, saved and got my eye surgery done by one of the best doctors in the country with 0 wait. Screening, Pre Operation appointment, surgery, post op. Total time from contacting the doctor to the post op (this coming monday) no more then a month.

Which is not a bad system for elective procedures that you can plan for in advance.

Now, cancer and car wrecks on the other hand do not give luxuries like that and cost a lot more. That's where capitalism buries you.