On September 13 2009 02:21 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2009 01:32 Savio wrote:On September 12 2009 06:01 Polyphasic wrote:On September 11 2009 11:07 Savio wrote:On September 11 2009 05:34 ghostWriter wrote:On September 11 2009 05:22 Louder wrote:On September 10 2009 10:19 Caller wrote:On September 10 2009 10:18 Louder wrote:On September 10 2009 09:39 s_side wrote:
He better make a damn good impression tonight. His support, especially among independents and conservative democrats is vanishing like a squirt of piss in a hurricane. The fact that conservative and democrats are so frequently paired together makes me T_T i know to think that conservatives associate with democrats of all people O.O I should have phrased this more clearly. I actually meant the WORDS , as in "conservative democrat", as in, what the fuck? Are you talking about blue dog democrats? Because they aren't really conservative, but are really just hesitating to hop onto the health care bill because they get a lot of contributions from hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, etc. that would probably see their profits drop. ugh, I wish people would educate themselves a bit before posting. Pharmaceuticals SUPPORT Obama's health care plan. Pharma is even paying big $$$ to advertise in favor of Obama's plan. My guess is that "hospitals" in general are also supportive of the plan since after all, the bill brings MORE money to the health care industry NOT less. I don't know where you are getting the idea that hospitals will "see profits drop" with this bill. obama is doing this right. i wouldn't be surprised if most healthcare professionals are supportive of his plan. hospitals are probably orgasming all over america at the thought of a concerted national effort to reduce waste, inefficiency, and malpractice in the healthcare system. let me put it to you this way. by reducing waste, inefficiency, and malpractice, it means that your scvs bring back 16 minerals per round instead of 8. statistically, that is the extent to which our system is inefficient and broken. This bill does not address the malpractice problem. A HUGE percentage of the donations to the democratic party comes from lawyers and so my guess is that you will NEVER see tort reform being offered by the democrats. That would have to come from the GOP (stupid Bush should have gotten that done while they had a majority but he was wasting all his political capital on a war that almost surely was not necessary). The malpractice problem is huge. Another thing that absolutely needs to be addressed (and I KNOW you'll agree) is the costs of becoming a practicing physician. Medical school is far too expensive, and even if an ideal comprehensive plan were put in place, we'd still be short tens of thousands of doctors. Right now, it looks like we'll probably be importing doctors from India and South America.
Agreed. I'm thinking about becoming a doctor, but the bill for med school gives me pause. As I understand it, taking out loans for college is okay, it doesn't go past a few thousand dollars, maybe tens of thousands, but most people can probably pay it back relatively quickly. But for medical school, you can be over a hundred thousand dollars in debt by the time you finish your classes and you still have to do your residency for a few years and be paid like nothing for the ridiculous hours that you put in. By the time you're finished with residency and paying back loans, you should be around 30 years old depending on what you chose as your specialty =/
Not really a fan of this.
And thanks for clearing that up Savio, although I know that politicians always go back on campaign promises, I didn't know that Obama changed his position already.
|
EPT
