mnealtx 0
DanG 1
Quotethis is wrong on multiple levels. first, and most relevant to this discussion, obama clearly doesn't even have a general picture of heathcare costs. second, to suggest that physicians let conditions that they could treat get worse so they could make more money down the road is downright rediculous. and third, the surgeon is not going to share his income with the family practice doc. i ask again, how can you fix a money problem without first knowing where all of the money is going? obama's idea of healthcare reform will cause far more problems than it solves. he and congress need to back the hell up and do this health care reform right.
I don't think his implication is that the physician is intentionally letting the problem get worse so that the hospital will make more in the long run. The idea is that an overworked doctor who does not get paid for spending time on follow-up, monitoring, or preventative medicine in general is not going to do those things as a practical matter. The physician who gets reimbursed for preventative medicine will be able to take more time to help the patient maintain health. That saves everybody money, including the patient, the patient's employer, the insurance company, and even the hospital.
- Dan G
Quote
Since you won't, that tells me all I need to know about your supposed impartiality on the subject.
What it should indicate is that I'm interested in you making your own argument. Let's see:
Lob out an unreferenced accusation.
Dare people to dispute it.
Assume some sort of vindication when people ignore it.
But this is a typical right wing fallacious argument so I appreciate the example, as well as thread continuity.
Now I wouldn't be a good "lib" if I didn't point out my own mishandling of the discussion. I allowed myself to get pulled away from any reasonable exchange and instead, spent way too much time dealing with a deliberate diversion. I apologize and will try to make sure it doesn't happen again as it is a benefit to no one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Since you won't, that tells me all I need to know about your supposed impartiality on the subject.
What it should indicate is that I'm interested in you making your own argument. Let's see:
Lob out an unreferenced accusation.
Dare people to dispute it.
Assume some sort of vindication when people ignore it.
But this is a typical right wing fallacious argument so I appreciate the example, as well as thread continuity.
Now I wouldn't be a good "lib" if I didn't point out my own mishandling of the discussion. I allowed myself to get pulled away from any reasonable exchange and instead, spent way too much time dealing with a deliberate diversion. I apologize and will try to make sure it doesn't happen again as it is a benefit to no one.
The 'diversion' here is yours....unless you call characterizing the Dem bullying tactics as a 'red herring' an honest discussion.
Of course, I expected no less, so I'm not disappointed. Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
The 'diversion' here is yours....unless you call characterizing the Dem bullying tactics as a 'red herring' an honest discussion.
Of course, I expected no less, so I'm not disappointed. Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left.
I have no idea what you think I'm characterizing Mike. You haven't presented anything yet
Help me out here. At the very LEAST you can try writing nothing in three sentences instead of the usual two. Tell you what Mike, the next time I don't present an argument I would appreciate it if you would give me a full rebuttal
I know I said I was going to try not to respond to this stuff but now it's getting kinda funny (in a rather sad sort of way).
Ok, time for a humorous slant from, once again, one of the best "news" organizations on the planet.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
mnealtx 0
QuoteI have no idea what you think I'm characterizing Mike. You haven't presented anything yet
You mentioned it yourself, in post 126, unless there was another idrankwhat speaking about Obama and red herrings.
You subsequently decided it wasn't worth checking out, regardless of your claims that any bullying tactics were wrong.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I get it, you call "fresh herring" and I'm supposed to go to the store, buy the tackle, the fishing permit, rent the boat and go fish. Sorry buddy.
Mike, sitting back sniping one and two line jabs may feed your partisan fetish but it's a lousy way to present an argument.
You found the reference (or "a" reference) with a quick Google search - all you have to do is go read it.
Since you won't, that tells me all I need to know about your supposed impartiality on the subject.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706