Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[Sun Devil 92]

Great claims on both sides.

Is Obamacare Slowing Health Care Spending - Forbes

In general, there has been no trend in annual changes in health care spending during the Obama presidency. However, health care spending increases in recent years are definitely lower than they have been in the past. As I have previously reported, today’s low annual increases in health care spending (including their increase relative to GDP) are part of a long run trend stretching back to the early years of the first George W. Bush Administration. Obamacare obviously had nothing to do with that.

Not that I believe any of this.

Who can you believe ? Once again, these numbers come with little or no context for someone like me who knows so little.

I think in terms of basics. It would be great to have an Obamacare for Dummies page somewhere.

For sure there are endless opinions out there and myriad pretty charts and graphs and proclamations from both sides each providing opposing information and citing different numbers.

And it is pretty much a given that the built in bias from each source will determine what their 'report card' will show so far. The govenrment and leftist sources give it pretty good marks. Everybody else not so much.

After the government has lied to us again and again and again about what to expect from the ACA--that much we do know for a fact--it is also a fact that Obama has issued multiple executive fiats to change the law to delay the most disastrous consequences as those began to show up. And the more onerous requirements were always delayed until after the 2012 and 2014 elections--no surprise there. Some particular unpopular provisions won't kick in until next year, so it will be some time before we can know how good or bad it will be.
Questions and answers on the latest ACA delay

Ultimately it will all come down to personal perception. Leftwingers who want leftist programs like ACA to succeed will scour the internet looking for ways to support it and make it look good. And they will believe the sources they find.

Rightwingers who are more skeptical of and opposed to big government solutions to most things, believe the ACA will be another massively expensive and ultimately unsustainable government program, and will hunt for and point out the negatives.

It seems those who have suffered no significant difference in their healthcare are pretty ambivalent about it.

And those who are receiving government subsidies to lower their healthcare costs are happy and they don't care that others are being forced to pay their bills for them.

And people like my husband and myself who are paying significantly more out of pocket, who have lost beloved doctors, who are seeing wait times for healthcare much increased and seeing the healthcare available to us shrunk, and who know health care professional who have no confidence that it isn't going to get a lot worse, definitely have our own perceptions.

I agree with your assessment of the bias.

But that bias is scrubbed away (for the most part) when you have some numbers to look at and analyze.

Post #72 is the kind of data to start with.

However, the data does not say as much as it raises a lot of other questions. Which should be asked. And when people can finally look at this in the most simplified fashion possible......and still walk away feeling like they've been treated as thinking organisms.....I'll be a lot happier.

 

[Foxfyre]

Great claims on both sides.

Is Obamacare Slowing Health Care Spending - Forbes

In general, there has been no trend in annual changes in health care spending during the Obama presidency. However, health care spending increases in recent years are definitely lower than they have been in the past. As I have previously reported, today’s low annual increases in health care spending (including their increase relative to GDP) are part of a long run trend stretching back to the early years of the first George W. Bush Administration. Obamacare obviously had nothing to do with that.

Not that I believe any of this.

Who can you believe ? Once again, these numbers come with little or no context for someone like me who knows so little.

I think in terms of basics. It would be great to have an Obamacare for Dummies page somewhere.

For sure there are endless opinions out there and myriad pretty charts and graphs and proclamations from both sides each providing opposing information and citing different numbers.

And it is pretty much a given that the built in bias from each source will determine what their 'report card' will show so far. The govenrment and leftist sources give it pretty good marks. Everybody else not so much.

After the government has lied to us again and again and again about what to expect from the ACA--that much we do know for a fact--it is also a fact that Obama has issued multiple executive fiats to change the law to delay the most disastrous consequences as those began to show up. And the more onerous requirements were always delayed until after the 2012 and 2014 elections--no surprise there. Some particular unpopular provisions won't kick in until next year, so it will be some time before we can know how good or bad it will be.
Questions and answers on the latest ACA delay

Ultimately it will all come down to personal perception. Leftwingers who want leftist programs like ACA to succeed will scour the internet looking for ways to support it and make it look good. And they will believe the sources they find.

Rightwingers who are more skeptical of and opposed to big government solutions to most things, believe the ACA will be another massively expensive and ultimately unsustainable government program, and will hunt for and point out the negatives.

It seems those who have suffered no significant difference in their healthcare are pretty ambivalent about it.

And those who are receiving government subsidies to lower their healthcare costs are happy and they don't care that others are being forced to pay their bills for them.

And people like my husband and myself who are paying significantly more out of pocket, who have lost beloved doctors, who are seeing wait times for healthcare much increased and seeing the healthcare available to us shrunk, and who know health care professional who have no confidence that it isn't going to get a lot worse, definitely have our own perceptions.

I agree with your assessment of the bias.

But that bias is scrubbed away (for the most part) when you have some numbers to look at and analyze.

Post #72 is the kind of data to start with.

However, the data does not say as much as it raises a lot of other questions. Which should be asked. And when people can finally look at this in the most simplified fashion possible......and still walk away feeling like they've been treated as thinking organisms.....I'll be a lot happier.

But Post #72 presumably shows the CBO data and, when everybody is confident in the data presented, just about everybody uses it. But CBO is restricted to the data furnished it by government officials and agencies and, because of the obvious dishonesty that has been built into the ACA from the get go, there are many who do not trust the CBO numbers to reflect the honest or whole picture re that.

Statistics that focus on one aspect of something can be very misleading when they do not include data that would strongly qualify one set of numbers. It's like citing your mortgage payment as the cost of living in your home without also including taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance etc.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Great claims on both sides.

Is Obamacare Slowing Health Care Spending - Forbes

In general, there has been no trend in annual changes in health care spending during the Obama presidency. However, health care spending increases in recent years are definitely lower than they have been in the past. As I have previously reported, today’s low annual increases in health care spending (including their increase relative to GDP) are part of a long run trend stretching back to the early years of the first George W. Bush Administration. Obamacare obviously had nothing to do with that.

Not that I believe any of this.

Who can you believe ? Once again, these numbers come with little or no context for someone like me who knows so little.

I think in terms of basics. It would be great to have an Obamacare for Dummies page somewhere.

For sure there are endless opinions out there and myriad pretty charts and graphs and proclamations from both sides each providing opposing information and citing different numbers.

And it is pretty much a given that the built in bias from each source will determine what their 'report card' will show so far. The govenrment and leftist sources give it pretty good marks. Everybody else not so much.

After the government has lied to us again and again and again about what to expect from the ACA--that much we do know for a fact--it is also a fact that Obama has issued multiple executive fiats to change the law to delay the most disastrous consequences as those began to show up. And the more onerous requirements were always delayed until after the 2012 and 2014 elections--no surprise there. Some particular unpopular provisions won't kick in until next year, so it will be some time before we can know how good or bad it will be.
Questions and answers on the latest ACA delay

Ultimately it will all come down to personal perception. Leftwingers who want leftist programs like ACA to succeed will scour the internet looking for ways to support it and make it look good. And they will believe the sources they find.

Rightwingers who are more skeptical of and opposed to big government solutions to most things, believe the ACA will be another massively expensive and ultimately unsustainable government program, and will hunt for and point out the negatives.

It seems those who have suffered no significant difference in their healthcare are pretty ambivalent about it.

And those who are receiving government subsidies to lower their healthcare costs are happy and they don't care that others are being forced to pay their bills for them.

And people like my husband and myself who are paying significantly more out of pocket, who have lost beloved doctors, who are seeing wait times for healthcare much increased and seeing the healthcare available to us shrunk, and who know health care professional who have no confidence that it isn't going to get a lot worse, definitely have our own perceptions.

I agree with your assessment of the bias.

But that bias is scrubbed away (for the most part) when you have some numbers to look at and analyze.

Post #72 is the kind of data to start with.

However, the data does not say as much as it raises a lot of other questions. Which should be asked. And when people can finally look at this in the most simplified fashion possible......and still walk away feeling like they've been treated as thinking organisms.....I'll be a lot happier.

But Post #72 presumably shows the CBO data and, when everybody is confident in the data presented, just about everybody uses it. But CBO is restricted to the data furnished it by government officials and agencies and, because of the obvious dishonesty that has been built into the ACA from the get go, there are many who do not trust the CBO numbers to reflect the honest or whole picture re that.

Statistics that focus on one aspect of something can be very misleading when they do not include data that would strongly qualify one set of numbers. It's like citing your mortgage payment as the cost of living in your home without also including taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance etc.

I agree 100% and did not mean to imply otherwise.

That data can't be seen as anything other than what it claims to be. And certainly developing trusted sources is important.

That is what makes these conversations so miserable (and often fruitless).

There is value to both sides in not sharing complete information.

 

[Foxfyre]

Great claims on both sides.

Is Obamacare Slowing Health Care Spending - Forbes

In general, there has been no trend in annual changes in health care spending during the Obama presidency. However, health care spending increases in recent years are definitely lower than they have been in the past. As I have previously reported, today’s low annual increases in health care spending (including their increase relative to GDP) are part of a long run trend stretching back to the early years of the first George W. Bush Administration. Obamacare obviously had nothing to do with that.

Not that I believe any of this.

Who can you believe ? Once again, these numbers come with little or no context for someone like me who knows so little.

I think in terms of basics. It would be great to have an Obamacare for Dummies page somewhere.

For sure there are endless opinions out there and myriad pretty charts and graphs and proclamations from both sides each providing opposing information and citing different numbers.

And it is pretty much a given that the built in bias from each source will determine what their 'report card' will show so far. The govenrment and leftist sources give it pretty good marks. Everybody else not so much.

After the government has lied to us again and again and again about what to expect from the ACA--that much we do know for a fact--it is also a fact that Obama has issued multiple executive fiats to change the law to delay the most disastrous consequences as those began to show up. And the more onerous requirements were always delayed until after the 2012 and 2014 elections--no surprise there. Some particular unpopular provisions won't kick in until next year, so it will be some time before we can know how good or bad it will be.
Questions and answers on the latest ACA delay

Ultimately it will all come down to personal perception. Leftwingers who want leftist programs like ACA to succeed will scour the internet looking for ways to support it and make it look good. And they will believe the sources they find.

Rightwingers who are more skeptical of and opposed to big government solutions to most things, believe the ACA will be another massively expensive and ultimately unsustainable government program, and will hunt for and point out the negatives.

It seems those who have suffered no significant difference in their healthcare are pretty ambivalent about it.

And those who are receiving government subsidies to lower their healthcare costs are happy and they don't care that others are being forced to pay their bills for them.

And people like my husband and myself who are paying significantly more out of pocket, who have lost beloved doctors, who are seeing wait times for healthcare much increased and seeing the healthcare available to us shrunk, and who know health care professional who have no confidence that it isn't going to get a lot worse, definitely have our own perceptions.

I agree with your assessment of the bias.

But that bias is scrubbed away (for the most part) when you have some numbers to look at and analyze.

Post #72 is the kind of data to start with.

However, the data does not say as much as it raises a lot of other questions. Which should be asked. And when people can finally look at this in the most simplified fashion possible......and still walk away feeling like they've been treated as thinking organisms.....I'll be a lot happier.

But Post #72 presumably shows the CBO data and, when everybody is confident in the data presented, just about everybody uses it. But CBO is restricted to the data furnished it by government officials and agencies and, because of the obvious dishonesty that has been built into the ACA from the get go, there are many who do not trust the CBO numbers to reflect the honest or whole picture re that.

Statistics that focus on one aspect of something can be very misleading when they do not include data that would strongly qualify one set of numbers. It's like citing your mortgage payment as the cost of living in your home without also including taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance etc.

I agree 100% and did not mean to imply otherwise.

That data can't be seen as anything other than what it claims to be. And certainly developing trusted sources is important.

That is what makes these conversations so miserable (and often fruitless).

There is value to both sides in not sharing complete information.

Your last sentence contradicts the one just above it I think. I see these conversations as invaluable to those who want to BE right instead of having their personal biases, prejudices, and ideological point of view reinforced.

Because somebody like Greenbeard has consistently posted information favorable to the ACA, and somebody else will post information contrary to the information in Greenbeard's posts, the person wanting the real skinny has access to both. And we are likely to emerge wiser than we would if we only look at or consider one point of view or emphasis.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Great claims on both sides.

Is Obamacare Slowing Health Care Spending - Forbes

In general, there has been no trend in annual changes in health care spending during the Obama presidency. However, health care spending increases in recent years are definitely lower than they have been in the past. As I have previously reported, today’s low annual increases in health care spending (including their increase relative to GDP) are part of a long run trend stretching back to the early years of the first George W. Bush Administration. Obamacare obviously had nothing to do with that.

Not that I believe any of this.

Who can you believe ? Once again, these numbers come with little or no context for someone like me who knows so little.

I think in terms of basics. It would be great to have an Obamacare for Dummies page somewhere.

For sure there are endless opinions out there and myriad pretty charts and graphs and proclamations from both sides each providing opposing information and citing different numbers.

And it is pretty much a given that the built in bias from each source will determine what their 'report card' will show so far. The govenrment and leftist sources give it pretty good marks. Everybody else not so much.

After the government has lied to us again and again and again about what to expect from the ACA--that much we do know for a fact--it is also a fact that Obama has issued multiple executive fiats to change the law to delay the most disastrous consequences as those began to show up. And the more onerous requirements were always delayed until after the 2012 and 2014 elections--no surprise there. Some particular unpopular provisions won't kick in until next year, so it will be some time before we can know how good or bad it will be.
Questions and answers on the latest ACA delay

Ultimately it will all come down to personal perception. Leftwingers who want leftist programs like ACA to succeed will scour the internet looking for ways to support it and make it look good. And they will believe the sources they find.

Rightwingers who are more skeptical of and opposed to big government solutions to most things, believe the ACA will be another massively expensive and ultimately unsustainable government program, and will hunt for and point out the negatives.

It seems those who have suffered no significant difference in their healthcare are pretty ambivalent about it.

And those who are receiving government subsidies to lower their healthcare costs are happy and they don't care that others are being forced to pay their bills for them.

And people like my husband and myself who are paying significantly more out of pocket, who have lost beloved doctors, who are seeing wait times for healthcare much increased and seeing the healthcare available to us shrunk, and who know health care professional who have no confidence that it isn't going to get a lot worse, definitely have our own perceptions.

I agree with your assessment of the bias.

But that bias is scrubbed away (for the most part) when you have some numbers to look at and analyze.

Post #72 is the kind of data to start with.

However, the data does not say as much as it raises a lot of other questions. Which should be asked. And when people can finally look at this in the most simplified fashion possible......and still walk away feeling like they've been treated as thinking organisms.....I'll be a lot happier.

But Post #72 presumably shows the CBO data and, when everybody is confident in the data presented, just about everybody uses it. But CBO is restricted to the data furnished it by government officials and agencies and, because of the obvious dishonesty that has been built into the ACA from the get go, there are many who do not trust the CBO numbers to reflect the honest or whole picture re that.

Statistics that focus on one aspect of something can be very misleading when they do not include data that would strongly qualify one set of numbers. It's like citing your mortgage payment as the cost of living in your home without also including taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance etc.

I agree 100% and did not mean to imply otherwise.

That data can't be seen as anything other than what it claims to be. And certainly developing trusted sources is important.

That is what makes these conversations so miserable (and often fruitless).

There is value to both sides in not sharing complete information.

Your last sentence contradicts the one just above it I think. I see these conversations as invaluable to those who want to BE right instead of having their personal biases, prejudices, and ideological point of view reinforced.

Because somebody like Greenbeard has consistently posted information favorable to the ACA, and somebody else will post information contrary to the information in Greenbeard's posts, the person wanting the real skinny has access to both. And we are likely to emerge wiser than we would if we only look at or consider one point of view or emphasis.

There is no BE right.

There is only being conversant in the facts. What conclusions you draw and how you feel about things is up to you.

To draw meaningful and good conclusions, you need meaningful and good information.

Obamacare is a massively complex subject.

I'll probably start looking for threads that deal with some of the more minute components of health care.

 

[Greenbeard]

Is Obamacare Slowing Health Care Spending - Forbes

In general, there has been no trend in annual changes in health care spending during the Obama presidency. However, health care spending increases in recent years are definitely lower than they have been in the past. As I have previously reported, today’s low annual increases in health care spending (including their increase relative to GDP) are part of a long run trend stretching back to the early years of the first George W. Bush Administration. Obamacare obviously had nothing to do with that.

Not that I believe any of this.

Who can you believe ? Once again, these numbers come with little or no context for someone like me who knows so little.

This doesn't have to be about picking which assertions you prefer to believe. This sort of nihilistic "there are no facts, all data is falsified, pick whichever reality you like" undercurrent that's emerging here is a bit disturbing to me. It really is possible to evaluate different arguments being made.

If 1) I say the ACA is playing a role in the slowdown in health spending growth, 2) Foxfyre says the ACA is causing deductibles to rise, and 3) John Goodman argues that rising deductibles and out-of-pocket spending are the prime factor behind the slowdown, then we're all effectively arguing the same thing.

I think in terms of basics. It would be great to have an Obamacare for Dummies page somewhere.

The challenge is that understanding what the ACA is doing and has done requires some knowledge of the U.S. health care system. And many of the folks with the strongest opinions about the ACA don't know all that much about the health system. The ACA is part of a bigger picture, so understanding the ACA requires understanding that bigger picture.

There are resources that do a good job sketching out the contours of that bigger picture, but I'm pretty sure you've already written off those sources (primarily Kaiser Family Foundation and The Commonwealth Fund) as things you won't read. But you can get that picture from basically any industry-watcher or health policy group out there--it's clear as day what's happening.

Ultimately it will all come down to personal perception. Leftwingers who want leftist programs like ACA to succeed will scour the internet looking for ways to support it and make it look good. And they will believe the sources they find.

No, it doesn't come down to personal perception. You've made a series of false assertions in your last several posts and offered nothing to back them up. You may perceive them to be true, but they're in fact demonstrably false.

There's a difference between deciding how you interpret/perceive facts and distorting or just ignoring facts in order to advance your perceptions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is Obamacare Slowing Health Care Spending - Forbes

In general, there has been no trend in annual changes in health care spending during the Obama presidency. However, health care spending increases in recent years are definitely lower than they have been in the past. As I have previously reported, today’s low annual increases in health care spending (including their increase relative to GDP) are part of a long run trend stretching back to the early years of the first George W. Bush Administration. Obamacare obviously had nothing to do with that.

Not that I believe any of this.

Who can you believe ? Once again, these numbers come with little or no context for someone like me who knows so little.

This doesn't have to be about picking which assertions you prefer to believe. This sort of nihilistic "there are no facts, all data is falsified, pick whichever reality you like" undercurrent that's emerging here is a bit disturbing to me. It really is possible to evaluate different arguments being made.

If 1) I say the ACA is playing a role in the slowdown in health spending growth, 2) Foxfyre says the ACA is causing deductibles to rise, and 3) John Goodman argues that rising deductibles and out-of-pocket spending are the prime factor behind the slowdown, then we're all effectively arguing the same thing.

I think in terms of basics. It would be great to have an Obamacare for Dummies page somewhere.

The challenge is that understanding what the ACA is doing and has done requires some knowledge of the U.S. health care system. And many of the folks with the strongest opinions about the ACA don't know all that much about the health system. The ACA is part of a bigger picture, so understanding the ACA requires understanding that bigger picture.

There are resources that do a good job sketching out the contours of that bigger picture, but I'm pretty sure you've already written off those sources (primarily Kaiser Family Foundation and The Commonwealth Fund) as things you won't read. But you can get that picture from basically any industry-watcher or health policy group out there--it's clear as day what's happening.

Ultimately it will all come down to personal perception. Leftwingers who want leftist programs like ACA to succeed will scour the internet looking for ways to support it and make it look good. And they will believe the sources they find.

No, it doesn't come down to personal perception. You've made a series of false assertions in your last several posts and offered nothing to back them up. You may perceive them to be true, but they're in fact demonstrably false.

There's a difference between deciding how you interpret/perceive facts and distorting or just ignoring facts in order to advance your perceptions.

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

I have looked at a lot of sources, some applauding Obamacare and some ripping it and most giving it mixed reviews. I worked in the healthcare business in some capacity for a lot of years so have some experience in how things were compared to how things are.

I have no reason to believe that the doctors and other healthcare professionals I have talked to about it are lying to me. One of my best friends is a M.D. And I know what my own personal experience has been. And you have not in any way demonstrated that those testimonies or my experience is false.

Maybe Obamacare will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread. But we won't get to the truth of it unless we are willing to consider whether what has gotten better was due to Obamacare or other factors or what has gotten worse was due to Obamacare or other factors or whether something different would have been more effective and less painful.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Maybe Obamacare will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread. But we won't get to the truth of it unless we are willing to consider whether what has gotten better was due to Obamacare or other factors or what has gotten worse was due to Obamacare or other factors or whether something different would have been more effective and less painful.

Once again, I have to ask....how would you know this was the case.

What were your metrics and how would you relate cause and effect.

You've already pointed out some things that might or might not be the cause of Obamacare that others have claimed are absolutely related to Obamacare.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe Obamacare will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread. But we won't get to the truth of it unless we are willing to consider whether what has gotten better was due to Obamacare or other factors or what has gotten worse was due to Obamacare or other factors or whether something different would have been more effective and less painful.

Once again, I have to ask....how would you know this was the case.

What were your metrics and how would you relate cause and effect.

You've already pointed out some things that might or might not be the cause of Obamacare that others have claimed are absolutely related to Obamacare.

I have? I don't recall doing that.

I don't have any metrics of my own and I do not claim any particular gift for clairvoyance to know what data out there has been skewed for political advantage and what can be trusted.

But, IMO, the preponderance of the evidence that exists does strongly tilt in the favor of a healthcare program deveoped for political advantage by people who frankly don't seem to give a sh*t that it is seriously hurting some people. And they will say just about anything to cover their own behinds.

I am old enough to remember when the USA had the best healthcare in the world and people came here from all over the world for treatment of difficult to diagnose and treat conditions. When you needed to see a doctor you could see a doctor and weren't sent to the emergency room because your doctor couldn't work you in that day.

I am old enough to know that people wanted to be in the healthcare profession and a substantial percentage weren't looking for ways to take early retirement or get out of the business because it has become a nightmare of inefficiency and red tape. There was love and heart and hope and caring instead of the cattle herd run em through as fast as you can system.

I wasn't afraid to go to the hospital then. Now I am.

 

[Greenbeard]

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

Many people lost their doctors (shown).

Many people lost their insurance (shown).

The law is not popular (what the hell is going on with that ?).

If we based this on popularity (if we are picking arbitrary standards), it's a failure.

 

[Foxfyre]

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

Many people lost their doctors (shown).

Many people lost their insurance (shown).

The law is not popular (what the hell is going on with that ?).

If we based this on popularity (if we are picking arbitrary standards), it's a failure.

Also, my argument I believe classifies a bit more than just anecdotal. I don't think Greenbeard can back up his argument with hard evidence at least as it relates to Obamacare. The fact is that most Obamacare insurance plans include access to fewer doctors and hospitals than the old insurance policies did. And dump millions more people into the Medicaid programs further increases work loads for those doctors and hospitals who are in the plan meaning long waits to see a doctor. Again, emergency rooms are far more crowded than before. Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

And because the government is reimbursing doctors below cost in the Medicaid and Medicare lans, and will do so even more as we get deeper into Obamacare, doctors are increasingly resisting taking those patients.

For the few things government can point to with pride that they have made better--all coming at a huge cost to us all--there are many negatives.

Obamacare Fewer Doctors More Demand Cato Institute

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

Many people lost their doctors (shown).

Many people lost their insurance (shown).

The law is not popular (what the hell is going on with that ?).

If we based this on popularity (if we are picking arbitrary standards), it's a failure.

Also, my argument I believe classifies a bit more than just anecdotal. I don't think Greenbeard can back up his argument with hard evidence at least as it relates to Obamacare. The fact is that most Obamacare insurance plans include access to fewer doctors and hospitals than the old insurance policies did. And dump millions more people into the Medicaid programs further increases work loads for those doctors and hospitals who are in the plan meaning long waits to see a doctor. Again, emergency rooms are far more crowded than before. Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

And because the government is reimbursing doctors below cost in the Medicaid and Medicare lans, and will do so even more as we get deeper into Obamacare, doctors are increasingly resisting taking those patients.

For the few things government can point to with pride that they have made better--all coming at a huge cost to us all--there are many negatives.

Obamacare Fewer Doctors More Demand Cato Institute

I quickly scanned your article and did not see any citations of other articles to back up the claims it (and you) made.

I agree with the final statement (conclusion) of the article about he laws of economics. However, that is where Greenbeard does have some information (for better or for worse) that he cites. The effects could clearly be transitory, if they exist. Economics is about equilibrium. When you change conditions there is a "rate" at which things equilibrate. It is easy to point to transient data...which is what I see happening. The long term effects have yet to be felt. They could be good though....under the right conditions.

I didn't see anything about crowded emergency rooms. Do you have a some data on that one ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

Many people lost their doctors (shown).

Many people lost their insurance (shown).

The law is not popular (what the hell is going on with that ?).

If we based this on popularity (if we are picking arbitrary standards), it's a failure.

Also, my argument I believe classifies a bit more than just anecdotal. I don't think Greenbeard can back up his argument with hard evidence at least as it relates to Obamacare. The fact is that most Obamacare insurance plans include access to fewer doctors and hospitals than the old insurance policies did. And dump millions more people into the Medicaid programs further increases work loads for those doctors and hospitals who are in the plan meaning long waits to see a doctor. Again, emergency rooms are far more crowded than before. Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

And because the government is reimbursing doctors below cost in the Medicaid and Medicare lans, and will do so even more as we get deeper into Obamacare, doctors are increasingly resisting taking those patients.

For the few things government can point to with pride that they have made better--all coming at a huge cost to us all--there are many negatives.

Obamacare Fewer Doctors More Demand Cato Institute

I quickly scanned your article and did not see any citations of other articles to back up the claims it (and you) made.

I agree with the final statement (conclusion) of the article about he laws of economics. However, that is where Greenbeard does have some information (for better or for worse) that he cites. The effects could clearly be transitory, if they exist. Economics is about equilibrium. When you change conditions there is a "rate" at which things equilibrate. It is easy to point to transient data...which is what I see happening. The long term effects have yet to be felt. They could be good though....under the right conditions.

I didn't see anything about crowded emergency rooms. Do you have a some data on that one ?

Both first hand experience, up close and personal conversations with doctors and other healthcare professionals who are living the nightmare, and plenty on line to back it up.

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

Demonstrably false? I don't think so because in order for you to show that my sources are 'demonstrably false' you will have to show evidence that your sources are more credible and trustworthy than my sources are credible and trustworthy.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

Many people lost their doctors (shown).

Many people lost their insurance (shown).

The law is not popular (what the hell is going on with that ?).

If we based this on popularity (if we are picking arbitrary standards), it's a failure.

Also, my argument I believe classifies a bit more than just anecdotal. I don't think Greenbeard can back up his argument with hard evidence at least as it relates to Obamacare. The fact is that most Obamacare insurance plans include access to fewer doctors and hospitals than the old insurance policies did. And dump millions more people into the Medicaid programs further increases work loads for those doctors and hospitals who are in the plan meaning long waits to see a doctor. Again, emergency rooms are far more crowded than before. Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

And because the government is reimbursing doctors below cost in the Medicaid and Medicare lans, and will do so even more as we get deeper into Obamacare, doctors are increasingly resisting taking those patients.

For the few things government can point to with pride that they have made better--all coming at a huge cost to us all--there are many negatives.

Obamacare Fewer Doctors More Demand Cato Institute

I quickly scanned your article and did not see any citations of other articles to back up the claims it (and you) made.

I agree with the final statement (conclusion) of the article about he laws of economics. However, that is where Greenbeard does have some information (for better or for worse) that he cites. The effects could clearly be transitory, if they exist. Economics is about equilibrium. When you change conditions there is a "rate" at which things equilibrate. It is easy to point to transient data...which is what I see happening. The long term effects have yet to be felt. They could be good though....under the right conditions.

I didn't see anything about crowded emergency rooms. Do you have a some data on that one ?

Both first hand experience, up close and personal conversations with doctors and other healthcare professionals who are living the nightmare, and plenty on line to back it up.

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare

Thanks for the article.

That is what I consider useful debate.

Your firsthand experience is meaning to you....not to me (in that I don't have it and I can't afford to take your word for it).

Here is a rather pathetic reply to this critism. It, again, raises the issue of who has the real numbers and how do we agree on what they are saying. This article does not prove...it mostly speculates after acknowledging that the Harvard study was not wrong.....

They take heart in the fact that the sky is not falling....and claim it will get better.

Most articles on this are in 2014. I have not seen anything recent when I've googled.

Obamacare and emergency rooms a bit of perspective needed Center for Public Integrity

 

[Foxfyre]

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

Your sources are anecdotes. I'm not arguing with them (only your fallacious attempts to draw broad conclusions about trends beyond your personal experience from them).

Your local hospital could be a dump, I can't dispute that nor does the truth of that have any implications for what I've been arguing. I'm talking about large-scale trends: the historic slowdown in health care cost growth, the general movement toward better quality results, the sharp decrease in the uninsured, etc.

You may be afraid of your local hospital(s) but most hospitals are showing gains in patient safety and better outcomes for their patients. They're changing the way they do business to better serve their patients and help preserve and restore their health, a difference from the old "factory" model of churning out health services to maximize revenue.

Similarly, you may know an uninsured person--that doesn't really negate the fact that on net millions of people just gained insurance under the ACA.

Your doctors may have retired, but overall in the U.S. there are more active doctors today than there were when the ACA passed.

You may know a senior who had trouble accessing care, but in general seniors with Medicare have better access to care than the commercially insured population nearing Medicare age do (and that level of access has held pretty steady since before the ACA passed).

And so on. The overall trends under the ACA have been remarkably good, regardless of whether your own experience has been anomalous.

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

Many people lost their doctors (shown).

Many people lost their insurance (shown).

The law is not popular (what the hell is going on with that ?).

If we based this on popularity (if we are picking arbitrary standards), it's a failure.

Also, my argument I believe classifies a bit more than just anecdotal. I don't think Greenbeard can back up his argument with hard evidence at least as it relates to Obamacare. The fact is that most Obamacare insurance plans include access to fewer doctors and hospitals than the old insurance policies did. And dump millions more people into the Medicaid programs further increases work loads for those doctors and hospitals who are in the plan meaning long waits to see a doctor. Again, emergency rooms are far more crowded than before. Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

And because the government is reimbursing doctors below cost in the Medicaid and Medicare lans, and will do so even more as we get deeper into Obamacare, doctors are increasingly resisting taking those patients.

For the few things government can point to with pride that they have made better--all coming at a huge cost to us all--there are many negatives.

Obamacare Fewer Doctors More Demand Cato Institute

I quickly scanned your article and did not see any citations of other articles to back up the claims it (and you) made.

I agree with the final statement (conclusion) of the article about he laws of economics. However, that is where Greenbeard does have some information (for better or for worse) that he cites. The effects could clearly be transitory, if they exist. Economics is about equilibrium. When you change conditions there is a "rate" at which things equilibrate. It is easy to point to transient data...which is what I see happening. The long term effects have yet to be felt. They could be good though....under the right conditions.

I didn't see anything about crowded emergency rooms. Do you have a some data on that one ?

Both first hand experience, up close and personal conversations with doctors and other healthcare professionals who are living the nightmare, and plenty on line to back it up.

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare

Thanks for the article.

That is what I consider useful debate.

Your firsthand experience is meaning to you....not to me (in that I don't have it and I can't afford to take your word for it).

We don't have to take the other's word for it in order to have useful debate. If you question whether my anecdotal evidence is typical across the board, at least you are informed of it and can then do your own research to satisfy whether I have a point or whether I am talking out my. . . .

I often find anecdotal accounts quite useful in these discussions because they do make me wonder if the general media propaganda out there is the way it really is. And it gives me concepts to research.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

Many people lost their doctors (shown).

Many people lost their insurance (shown).

The law is not popular (what the hell is going on with that ?).

If we based this on popularity (if we are picking arbitrary standards), it's a failure.

Also, my argument I believe classifies a bit more than just anecdotal. I don't think Greenbeard can back up his argument with hard evidence at least as it relates to Obamacare. The fact is that most Obamacare insurance plans include access to fewer doctors and hospitals than the old insurance policies did. And dump millions more people into the Medicaid programs further increases work loads for those doctors and hospitals who are in the plan meaning long waits to see a doctor. Again, emergency rooms are far more crowded than before. Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

And because the government is reimbursing doctors below cost in the Medicaid and Medicare lans, and will do so even more as we get deeper into Obamacare, doctors are increasingly resisting taking those patients.

For the few things government can point to with pride that they have made better--all coming at a huge cost to us all--there are many negatives.

Obamacare Fewer Doctors More Demand Cato Institute

I quickly scanned your article and did not see any citations of other articles to back up the claims it (and you) made.

I agree with the final statement (conclusion) of the article about he laws of economics. However, that is where Greenbeard does have some information (for better or for worse) that he cites. The effects could clearly be transitory, if they exist. Economics is about equilibrium. When you change conditions there is a "rate" at which things equilibrate. It is easy to point to transient data...which is what I see happening. The long term effects have yet to be felt. They could be good though....under the right conditions.

I didn't see anything about crowded emergency rooms. Do you have a some data on that one ?

Both first hand experience, up close and personal conversations with doctors and other healthcare professionals who are living the nightmare, and plenty on line to back it up.

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare

Thanks for the article.

That is what I consider useful debate.

Your firsthand experience is meaning to you....not to me (in that I don't have it and I can't afford to take your word for it).

We don't have to take the other's word for it in order to have useful debate. If you question whether my anecdotal evidence is typical across the board, at least you are informed of it and can then do your own research to satisfy whether I have a point or whether I am talking out my. . . .

I often find anecdotal accounts quite useful in these discussions because they do make me wonder if the general media propaganda out there is the way it really is. And it gives me concepts to research.

I believe I made the point to greenbeard that if you have enough anecdotes...you have a case.

Again, I don't see conservatives doing what they could be doing to gather evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, my argument I believe classifies a bit more than just anecdotal. I don't think Greenbeard can back up his argument with hard evidence at least as it relates to Obamacare. The fact is that most Obamacare insurance plans include access to fewer doctors and hospitals than the old insurance policies did. And dump millions more people into the Medicaid programs further increases work loads for those doctors and hospitals who are in the plan meaning long waits to see a doctor. Again, emergency rooms are far more crowded than before. Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

And because the government is reimbursing doctors below cost in the Medicaid and Medicare lans, and will do so even more as we get deeper into Obamacare, doctors are increasingly resisting taking those patients.

For the few things government can point to with pride that they have made better--all coming at a huge cost to us all--there are many negatives.

Obamacare Fewer Doctors More Demand Cato Institute

I quickly scanned your article and did not see any citations of other articles to back up the claims it (and you) made.

I agree with the final statement (conclusion) of the article about he laws of economics. However, that is where Greenbeard does have some information (for better or for worse) that he cites. The effects could clearly be transitory, if they exist. Economics is about equilibrium. When you change conditions there is a "rate" at which things equilibrate. It is easy to point to transient data...which is what I see happening. The long term effects have yet to be felt. They could be good though....under the right conditions.

I didn't see anything about crowded emergency rooms. Do you have a some data on that one ?

Both first hand experience, up close and personal conversations with doctors and other healthcare professionals who are living the nightmare, and plenty on line to back it up.

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare

Thanks for the article.

That is what I consider useful debate.

Your firsthand experience is meaning to you....not to me (in that I don't have it and I can't afford to take your word for it).

We don't have to take the other's word for it in order to have useful debate. If you question whether my anecdotal evidence is typical across the board, at least you are informed of it and can then do your own research to satisfy whether I have a point or whether I am talking out my. . . .

I often find anecdotal accounts quite useful in these discussions because they do make me wonder if the general media propaganda out there is the way it really is. And it gives me concepts to research.

I believe I made the point to greenbeard that if you have enough anecdotes...you have a case.

Again, I don't see conservatives doing what they could be doing to gather evidence.

What do you think this thread is all about then?

 

[Greenbeard]

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

If we're not talking about costs, quality, coverage, and access, what are we talking about? Those are the metrics that matter from a systemic perspective (is the health system performing better than it was five years ago? signs point to yes).

If the standard is whether Obamacare forbids aging Baby Boomers from retiring if they happen to be doctors, then I suppose it fails. Because no, it doesn't do that.

Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

Do you just make this stuff up off the cuff? Med school enrollment did indeed just hit an all-time high, and has grown by 15% over the past 7 years, but it's not because of a surge in foreign students. Only 300 of the 20,343 students (1.5%) entering med school last year were foreign. That compares with 326 students out of 17,759 (1.8%) back in 2007.

The data you refer to is in fact publicly available from the Association of American Medical Colleges:

This is the point I made above: you've done this all throughout the thread. Brazen, demonstrably false assertions that you've apparently just made up on the spot.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are correct. If such a claim can be backed up....but your so called improvements are against standards that you have decided set the metrics.

If we're not talking about costs, quality, coverage, and access, what are we talking about? Those are the metrics that matter from a systemic perspective (is the health system performing better than it was five years ago? signs point to yes).

If the standard is whether Obamacare forbids aging Baby Boomers from retiring if they happen to be doctors, then I suppose it fails. Because no, it doesn't do that.

Data shows medical school enrollment is up a bit--foreign students, especially from poorer countries--still find U.S. medicine the road to more prosperity to them--but the increased enrollment is nowhere near keeping pace with the early retirement many doctors have taken or are planning to take.

Do you just make this stuff up off the cuff? Med school enrollment did indeed just hit an all-time high, and has grown by 15% over the past 7 years, but it's not because of a surge in foreign students. Only 300 of the 20,343 students (1.5%) entering med school last year were foreign. That compares with 326 students out of 17,759 (1.8%) back in 2007.

The data you refer to is in fact publicly available from the Association of American Medical Colleges:

This is the point I made above: you've done this all throughout the thread. Brazen, demonstrably false assertions that you've apparently just made up on the spot.

I acknowledged that med school enrollments are up...just not anywhere near enough to meet demand. I will concede the foreign student data as it isn't important enough to me to look up.

But the fact is we don't have enough doctors now to meet all the demand in a timely manner, and it is projected to get much worse:

. . .Using data from the Census Bureau, it has been projected that by 2020, the degree of physician shortfall will be 50% greater than has been previously estimated. They find that there will likely be a shortfall of 300,000 doctors in 2020 after discovering that previous estimates of 200,000 weren’t including nearly 100,000 doctors who, based on past trends, will be retired or not actively practicing anymore. . . .
Doctor Shortage By 2020 CBS Philly

NOTE: Forbes in 2012 put the shortfall at 90,000 doctors so there are variances in opinion out there.​

So what my local professional sources are telling me is so far holding up.