You do realize plastic surgeons also do "b**b" jobs for women who have had mastectomies right??? It's not just about "large boobage". 

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jmel's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jmel's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jmel's comment:

Is this why everyone from the "civilized nations" come here with their family fortunes to have the life of a family member saved by the finest doctors and hospitals in the world?

If the most expensive and overvalued - the "best" money can buy - means the "finest", then you may be right.

There's no need to be nationalistic about it.  That "We're #1" obsequiousness will only get you so far....

Don`t disagree but, are we not already seeing  a drop in kids headed for medical degrees? Polling suggesting that 80% plus of doctors considering retirement if/when Obamacare kicks in? Medicare assuming reimbursement costs at 50%(historically 85%-100%) to doctors?

All sounds like significantly lower quality of care........no?

No.

The fact is that a large number of routine procedures and maladies don't need full-fledged doctors to get the same result.  Nurses and HPs will be able to accomplish the same results at less cost.  And preventive care means that a doctor can attend to more serious conditions.  Modern medicine is diversifying, but it isn't going anywhere...not with the sheer number of boomers retiring.

Otherwise, I honestly don't know what to make of people not going to medical school because doctors pay isn't good enough?  Say what?  If getting rich is their only motive, then they should find other jobs.  At the same time, biotech is booming, so maybe there is a connection.  (None of my doctors were born in the U.S., btw.)

Interesting stuff.  My ENT doc is from India and she`s brilliant.  She did go to school in the states though.  I had this argument at Christmas with a lifelong friend.  His thought was that "no doctor should make $700k cuz he(my buddy) works just as hard", (he`s a cop).  Under grad, Grad school, PHD, internship, etc,etc........nobody IMO is worth more than a doctor that can save lives.  Do they do it for the money?...........No.  Will they do it for HALF the money? Probably not.  HC will decline in quality.

Anyway, the argument came down to the same thing he always falls back on.  It always comes down to "need".  "How much does a doctor need"?  "How much money does a millionaire need"?  "How many guns does a gun collector need"?   Is that a Lib thing?  Why don`t Libs get that it`s not "need", it`s want.  It`s the right to make as much money as you want.  It`s the right to work as hard as you want to get as much as you want.  It`s Capitalism, it`s your right, and it`s what makes America great.

We start controlling incomes and having the government decide the pay plans for doctor`s services and we`re in trouble.

Wait a second...

You're equating the quality of care with the amount the doctor is being paid??  Really?!??

That's the problem with our health care system in a nutshell.  Under the fee-for-service model, doctors are NOT paid by how healthy their patients are; they're paid by how many patients they see and how many tests and scripts they write.

Your assertion means that only the well-off can afford quality care.  That's just absurd and not just a little immoral.  Nobody's life or livelihood should hinge solely on their ability to pay for the care that could save them.

Plus, we're talking about health care service and delivery, not "health".  Overall health can be improved in any number of ways, and not all of them require a doctor...at least not until we get older and things start breaking or falling off.  And even then, positive outcomes can be predicated by longer-term preventive care.

At the same time, a model healthy person can get in an accident or suffer the limitations of their genetic makeup.

I'm not saying all doctors are overpaid.  Far from it.  I just know that, based on the results we're getting as a nation, the overall quality of care does not merit the costs we are paying.    That's what this is all about.  Getting the most for our money.  'Cause right now, we ain't.

I`m saying that no kid goes through school, internships, etc...until they`re 35 years old to NOT make money.  Be careful here, my entire family, including my wife, is in HC.  We know this better than anyone.  We are intimately aware and involved with some of the best doctors in the world, in their field, and they ALL considered retirement when the SCOTUS upheld obamacare.  They deal every day with the reimbursement offers from Medicare/Medicaid and know that those are soon to be cut in half.

If you don`t think less money paid to doctors is going to effect quality of care, you`re being extremely naive.

Be careful here, my entire family, including my wife, is in HC.  We know this better than anyone. 

We are intimately aware and involved with some of the best doctors in the world, in their field, and they ALL considered retirement when the SCOTUS upheld obamacare. 

If you don`t think less money paid to doctors is going to effect quality of care, you`re being extremely naive.

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Interesting that when CBO reports somethig positive about team Obama, they are masters of all that is economique, but anything negative and they don't know sht.

Interesting that you stay mum when your fellow conservatives play the opposite game with CBO reports.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

Guys............lighten up.  Take a joke.  The "b....b" post was funny. 

In response to tvoter's comment:

Yeah. It's not the money. A b**b enhancement doctor simply has made it a priority in life to selflessly spread the message of large boobage.

In response to portfilio's comment:

Is the sky blue in your world? 

The reader will note that jmel does not even attempt to refute what I wrote.  Instead he makes an insinuation. Obviously, he knows that what I wrote is the truth as it is a series of quotes from the government and he has no way to successfully disprove it.

Thank you for the validation.

Apologies, you`re correct.  After watching EVERY single news show last night and reading every article on the subject matter, I should have posted the CBO`s findings. Here they are:

"President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.

CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade."

So, take your Obama admistration estimated nonsense and hide it away somewhere.  Every media outlet and every fact-check organization completely disagrees with you.  do you watch the news?

Again I would ask, is the sky blue in your world?

In response to jmel's comment:

In response to portfilio's comment:

Is the sky blue in your world? 

The reader will note that jmel does not even attempt to refute what I wrote.  Instead he makes an insinuation. Obviously, he knows that what I wrote is the truth as it is a series of quotes from the government and he has no way to successfully disprove it.

Thank you for the validation.

Apologies, you`re correct.  After watching EVERY single news show last night and reading every article on the subject matter, I should have posted the CBO`s findings. Here they are:

"President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.

CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade."

So, take your Obama admistration estimated nonsense and hide it away somewhere.  Every media outlet and every fact-check organization completely disagrees with you.  do you watch the news?

Again I would ask, is the sky blue in your world?

Now, here are the benefits that will chase away the stormy clouds and make the sky blue for most people:

Now, the Affordable Care Act does mitigate the effect of high cost sharing in a few crucial ways. Under the law, even the bronze plans will include the benefits in the basic, government-defined package -- with no annual or lifetime limits on total claims paid. That's a vast improvement over the present individual market, in which policies can have huge, hidden gaps that leave unsuspecting consumers paying bills they'd assumed were covered.

More important, the exchanges will have subsidies to offset both the premiums and cost-sharing for people who make less money. So poorer people would never face anything like $12,000 in out-of-pocket expenses; that's the reason I can live with the high deductibles.

Logic and common sense dictates that ultimately people, especially those with lower incomes, are now getting a better deal.

Sorry to chase away the dark cloud over your head.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Logic and common sense dictates that ultimately people, especially those with lower incomes, are now getting a better deal.

Sorry to chase away the dark cloud over your head.

That better deal comes at the expense of others.  The dollars paid out in care come from somewhere.  Where do oyuu think those dollars come from?

We were paying for them before. If you have BCBS, TAHP, or HPHC there is UCC charge built into the rates that is used to underwrite the premiums for an employer group. Hospitals also have to account for UCC also, which gets passed on to us.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jmel's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jmel's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jmel's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to jmel's comment:

Is this why everyone from the "civilized nations" come here with their family fortunes to have the life of a family member saved by the finest doctors and hospitals in the world?

If the most expensive and overvalued - the "best" money can buy - means the "finest", then you may be right.

There's no need to be nationalistic about it.  That "We're #1" obsequiousness will only get you so far....

Don`t disagree but, are we not already seeing  a drop in kids headed for medical degrees? Polling suggesting that 80% plus of doctors considering retirement if/when Obamacare kicks in? Medicare assuming reimbursement costs at 50%(historically 85%-100%) to doctors?

All sounds like significantly lower quality of care........no?

No.

The fact is that a large number of routine procedures and maladies don't need full-fledged doctors to get the same result.  Nurses and HPs will be able to accomplish the same results at less cost.  And preventive care means that a doctor can attend to more serious conditions.  Modern medicine is diversifying, but it isn't going anywhere...not with the sheer number of boomers retiring.

Otherwise, I honestly don't know what to make of people not going to medical school because doctors pay isn't good enough?  Say what?  If getting rich is their only motive, then they should find other jobs.  At the same time, biotech is booming, so maybe there is a connection.  (None of my doctors were born in the U.S., btw.)

Interesting stuff.  My ENT doc is from India and she`s brilliant.  She did go to school in the states though.  I had this argument at Christmas with a lifelong friend.  His thought was that "no doctor should make $700k cuz he(my buddy) works just as hard", (he`s a cop).  Under grad, Grad school, PHD, internship, etc,etc........nobody IMO is worth more than a doctor that can save lives.  Do they do it for the money?...........No.  Will they do it for HALF the money? Probably not.  HC will decline in quality.

Anyway, the argument came down to the same thing he always falls back on.  It always comes down to "need".  "How much does a doctor need"?  "How much money does a millionaire need"?  "How many guns does a gun collector need"?   Is that a Lib thing?  Why don`t Libs get that it`s not "need", it`s want.  It`s the right to make as much money as you want.  It`s the right to work as hard as you want to get as much as you want.  It`s Capitalism, it`s your right, and it`s what makes America great.

We start controlling incomes and having the government decide the pay plans for doctor`s services and we`re in trouble.

Wait a second...

You're equating the quality of care with the amount the doctor is being paid??  Really?!??

That's the problem with our health care system in a nutshell.  Under the fee-for-service model, doctors are NOT paid by how healthy their patients are; they're paid by how many patients they see and how many tests and scripts they write.

Your assertion means that only the well-off can afford quality care.  That's just absurd and not just a little immoral.  Nobody's life or livelihood should hinge solely on their ability to pay for the care that could save them.

Plus, we're talking about health care service and delivery, not "health".  Overall health can be improved in any number of ways, and not all of them require a doctor...at least not until we get older and things start breaking or falling off.  And even then, positive outcomes can be predicated by longer-term preventive care.

At the same time, a model healthy person can get in an accident or suffer the limitations of their genetic makeup.

I'm not saying all doctors are overpaid.  Far from it.  I just know that, based on the results we're getting as a nation, the overall quality of care does not merit the costs we are paying.    That's what this is all about.  Getting the most for our money.  'Cause right now, we ain't.

I`m saying that no kid goes through school, internships, etc...until they`re 35 years old to NOT make money.  Be careful here, my entire family, including my wife, is in HC.  We know this better than anyone.  We are intimately aware and involved with some of the best doctors in the world, in their field, and they ALL considered retirement when the SCOTUS upheld obamacare.  They deal every day with the reimbursement offers from Medicare/Medicaid and know that those are soon to be cut in half.

If you don`t think less money paid to doctors is going to effect quality of care, you`re being extremely naive.

Again, if all they're worried about is making money, they should go into hedge fund management or something that doesn't impact people's health.  There's a term for that: mercenary.

There's nothing in the hippocratic oath that says, make as much money as possible.  If they want to put their pocketbooks and wallets above the health of their patients, then good riddance.  Let 'em out to pasture.

Besides, if they want to stop treating the poor and disadvantaged, they can join a practice catering to the cadillac plans and uber-wealthy.

For someone who 'knows this better than anyone', your attitude is remarkably unsympathetic.

You are assuming that what doctors charge is not fair.  How can you make that assumption?  Based on what?

I knw "the government" and liberals think that what they charge is not fair, and enforce their feelings via reimbursment rates that are crippling hospitals and practices where the poor are.

So, who is wrong here?  the doctor that wants a fiar return on their labor, or "the government" that pays them half of that , then yells and screams when they deicde to go elsewhere?

It is the liberals and "the governemnt" that have made this a problem.  Their assmptions and goals are wrong-headed, plain and simple.