# Doctors' boo Obama



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: 
Oh, that must have bruised his huge ego.  Does this mean the honeymoon is over at last. Is this the end of a five month orgasm for liberals? Did one eye of America at last open just a crack?

Obama has blamed failure to get universal health care on fear mongering. Typical. When we don't agree with what liberals want to do and think it's bad for America, or morally corrupt we are called fear mongers. Typical.

For the full story: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1



> WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama isn't used to hearing boos.
> For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.
> 
> The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority-limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.
> ...


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Did you see the clip? He clearly anticipated it, and actually had a little fun with it. It definitely wasn't an embarrassment to him.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I watched the clip. He acted like he had a little fun with it, but if he did he is an idiot. It also wouldn't take much of a brain to anticipate it. After all if your going to shaft someone would you be surprised that they didn't like it?


----------



## hunter121390 (Nov 7, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Yes, I watched the clip. He acted like he had a little fun with it, but if he did he is an idiot. It also wouldn't take much of a brain to anticipate it. After all if your going to shaft someone would you be surprised that they didn't like it?


 Obama's an idiot so what can you expect. I think Obama needs to drop this universal national health care thing. obviously its not liked and probably will not work.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I certainly don't fault them for booing. They don't agree. That's cool. I see him having fun with it as an acknowledgment that we can disagree without being disagreeable. I really liked it. Don't you have to give him a little credit for laying it out there in a room full of people he knew wouldn't agree?

For the record, I am in favor of capping damage awards. I think you can take care of people who were wronged, without leaving the door open to extreme awards.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> For the record, I am in favor of capping damage awards. I think you can take care of people who were wronged, without leaving the door open to extreme awards.


I think everyone will agree to that Omegax. Like the dumb lady that got three million from McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee. They should put her in a mental institution instead of rewarding her.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

-----------------------OFF TOPIC-----------------



> Like the dumb lady that got three million from McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee. They should put her in a mental institution instead of rewarding her.


This was not paid by doctors but by Mc Donalds. How she got the money was that Mc Donalds knew the coffee would scald at that temp. But brewing coffee at that temp meant they could use less grounds per day. So they saved money. So how that number came about is that she got the amount of money saved from all Mc Donalds for that day in using less grounds and brewing coffee at that scalding temp.

------------------ Get back on topic ------------------------------------------

What needs to be put on hold are the ambulance chasers. Why do you think auto insurance is so high. Most policies the premium is bodily injury, PIP coverages (medical), and UM/UIM. These all have to do with medical expenses. Because every ambulance chaser knows that they can get $$$ because the coverages are there. I have had lawyers call me and ask what the policy limits are when they are suing a client. Because they know if they ask for double the policy limits they will get just under the policy limits. It is sad but true.

That is why Tort Reform is needed. Then the Malpractice stuff. It is just incredible the crap lawyers get away with. Yes lawyers are need but some are very shady. IMHO


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

----------- Again a little off topic -----------------

Here is another great story. A burglar was climbing on top of a roof. Was going to break into this home via a sky light. The sky light gave way at the frame and fell in. The would be crook got injured badly. Broken arm, ribs, glass puncture wounds, etc of what is expected from a 10 ft fall and landing on breaking glass. Anyway he got arrested and charged for burglary. But he sued the homeowners and won. Because the sky light was put in by a "friend" and no permits were pull. It was not inspected and was put in wrong. He got all of his medical bills paid for, plus got a whole slue of money for liability. He got the people home owners liability limits, and their umbrella limits. He walked away with over $1 million.

Now this shows you where some sort of tort reform is needed.

---------------------- Back on topic ------------------------------------

Sorry to high jack but I have many stories where lawyers get paid for being a little shady.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, I know it wasn't medical, but I couldn't think of a medical, only a stupid court decision. I don't care where I buy coffee I don't consider between my legs a cup holder. It may have been different in her case.  We need more icons. Like one with it's eyes closed shivering.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman.... If you want to find any medical one just watch TV and you will see adds of mass litigation going on towards drug companies and the doctors that prescribe a drug that lead to some complications. These drugs could even say mild complications. But if they can find a load of people that had this complication they can get a case. Or if a doctor did a procedure that later is found to be not the "right" option at the time. They sue.

Doctors have targets on there back bigger than a 200 class deer.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
> Oh, that must have bruised his huge ego.  Does this mean the honeymoon is over at last. Is this the end of a five month orgasm for liberals? Did one eye of America at last open just a crack?
> 
> Obama has blamed failure to get universal health care on fear mongering. Typical.  When we don't agree with what liberals want to do and think it's bad for America, or morally corrupt we are called fear mongers. Typical.


Umm.... he clearly knew he would get push back from the doctors intent on making maximum profit thru their association with the AMA.

You must not have read my post _from last week_, which anticipated as much...

to refresh your memory... here is why they boo'd.... greed on multiple different levels..

-----------------------------------------------

Here's my post from last week..., via *Ezra Klein at the Washington Post:*

(This should make everyone take pause at the true motivations behind the "information" being pushed out attacking these proposals. Be careful where you get your "sources" from! 



> The private insurance market is a mess.
> 
> It's supposed to cover the sick and instead competes to insure the well. It employs platoons of adjusters whose sole job is to get out of paying for needed health care services that members thought were covered.
> Moreover, public insurance is simply more efficient. Medicare holds costs down better than private health insurance. The substantially public systems employed by every other industrialized nation cost less and cover more than the American model. So the question became how to marry the policy need for public insurance with the political need to preserve the status quo.
> ...


_*Now*_ comes *the news* that the American Medical Association-*which Klein points out* has "opposed all public plans proposed by all presidents in all contexts"-will not support health care reform that involves a public plan, and has told Congress as much in the following language:



> The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.


_Which_, again *returning to Klein,* is what the AMA has been saying _forever_.



> The AMA represents the interests - *which it tends to define as the profits* - of doctors.
> 
> *That gives it a slightly different perspective on the American health-care system. *
> 
> ...


Obama's going to be addressing the AMA on Monday in Chicago. Will he take them on the way he took on the auto-makers in Detroit in a speech during his presidential campaign? The way he took on the Muslims and Jews of the Middle East on his recent trip to Cairo, telling them to speak honestly about the truth of their conflict and the limited possible solutions? The way he took on unhelpful exploiters of America's racial tensions in his famous speech in Philadelphia?

We'll see.

Until then, please enjoy, once again *via Klein*, a pre-presidential Ronald Reagan telling Americans in 1961 why health care reform is a sneaky form of socialism.






Ohhhh by the way.... wanna make a guess who paid him to do this? 8)

*The AMA.*

Zingggg....

Puts alot into perspective now doesn't it? IMO, after learning this, the AMA's credibility went right out the door. It should give everyone pause to consider this perspective.

It makes perfect sense.

source(s):

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... nne_3.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/po ... ealth.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... assoc.html

You seem to be confusing exactly why they boo'd him. They are afraid of losing their golden egg that the AMA has fought so hard for them to continue fleecing Americans...

but feel free to hijack their logic for booing


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

And since you likely didn't read that thread ( http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... c&start=40 )

Here is the other comment..

Here's another great article on the very same point(s) written by the New Yorker magazine...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... ande?yrail

Interesting read. (It's 8 pages, so make sure you click "next" thru all of them)

Quite simply, the AMA doesn't oppose health care reform, the AMA opposes doctors taking a pay cut.

Something to chew on...

ohhh and one last thing....

Do you know how Medicare keeps costs down? _They_ decide what rates are appropriate for various procedures and that's what they pay. Doctors can, of course, opt out which makes finding a doctor or simply staying with the one you have more and more difficult.

And doctors say that the reimbursements they receive from Medicare increasingly don't cover their costs. *Do you know how they bridge that gap?* They negotiate HIGHER rates with private insurance carriers.

It really isn't surprising that the AMA is opposing the idea of reform. Under a single policy, like Medicare, they're likely to make A LOT less than they do now and they're going to fight that tooth and nail. Private insurance is the only money train they have since most of us couldn't afford to pay cash at the rates they want.

So, the challenge here is not ONLY getting a single payer policy passed. Rather, it's enacting sweeping changes in a medical industrial complex that will mean lower payments and smaller paychecks in exchange for a cost effective and sustainable system.

Wanna guess what the AMA prefers?

Getting these changes past that cabal will be interesting. I hope it can happen but the power in this case does not lie with the patient, it lies with the doctors and insurers who can afford to pay to play in Washington.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The AMA represents the interests - which it tends to define as the profits - of doctors.
> 
> That gives it a slightly different perspective on the American health-care system.
> 
> ...


 I think they mean hospitals since there are not many private doctor offices like there used to be. Most work for a clinic or hospital.

Here is the sad truth......HOSPITALS/CLINICS ARE BUSINESSES. They need to make a profit or break even. What the general public does not understand is how much it costs to run a hospital.......Janitors, Maintance people, nurses, ex-ray techs, clinical staff, clerical staff, patient accounting, business accounting, Accounts recievables, billing department, staff in testing facilities, equipment, equipment maintances, insurance costs (building), malpractice insurance costs, employee insurance costs, etc. And I have not even gotten to the cost of storage of supplies, over head of supplies,. and actual procedures. I am also missing many, many things.

Now lets throw in the free care or aid programs with in a hospital or clinic that are offered to people.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Do you know how Medicare keeps costs down? They decide what rates are appropriate for various procedures and that's what they pay. Doctors can, of course, opt out which makes finding a doctor or simply staying with the one you have more and more difficult.
> 
> And doctors say that the reimbursements they receive from Medicare increasingly don't cover their costs. Do you know how they bridge that gap? They negotiate HIGHER rates with private insurance carriers.


Maybe the goverment needs to cut medicare subsidies to the private sector to help drop costs.

So the medicare industry is messed up. They negotiate a low cost but will help the private insurance sector pay for the higher costs.

Goverment at its finest.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You must not have read my post from last week, which anticipated as much.


No, I don't take you that serious anymore.

Did you read mine?


> It also wouldn't take much of a brain to anticipate it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > You must not have read my post from last week, which anticipated as much.
> 
> 
> No, I don't take you that serious anymore.


Too bad. Maybe you'd learn something.

....Then again... I don't believe that is your goal.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> Plainsman.... If you want to find any medical one just watch TV and you will see adds of mass litigation going on towards drug companies and the doctors that prescribe a drug that lead to some complications. These drugs could even say mild complications. But if they can find a load of people that had this complication they can get a case. Or if a doctor did a procedure that later is found to be not the "right" option at the time. They sue.
> 
> Doctors have targets on there back bigger than a 200 class deer.


I used to get an firearms magazine that had a monthly dumb crook lineup. I think we need one that has a lucky crook lineup so the public gets an idea how screwed up we are.

Yes, my neighbor is a doctor and I wouldn't trade places with him. He has a very nice home, but he has sure earned it. If he was in some sort of union they would go nuts over his hours.

So many people are worried that someone else might be making a better living than them. Mostly they think me, me, me. Would they be willing to go to college eight years? Even if they possessed the intelligence to do it? If they think their insurance is high look at malpractice. That can cost you a $100,000 a year, and much more in some states. If your a top doctor in California it would be much higher. I think Edwards made his money suing gynecologists.

Someone is making a lot of money, but I don't think it's the doctors. My experience has been that my insurance has been billed for things the hospital didn't do. Example: $200 for the recovery room my son never was in. I complained, but they said it was policy. Policy is always an excuse when there really is none.

Back to Obama speaking to the doctors. He started with a statement how he was going to revamp malpractice and they all started clapping. I have noticed that he often makes a comment that he knows people will agree with. He then goes on to drop the real message. I would guess he thinks if he comes up with some good news people will pay less attention to what he says next, or are more likely to accept it because they are still dwelling on his first statement. Perhaps that is why he often has to explain himself because it comes off as mixed signals. Reagan you never had to guess at what he said or what he meant. He was a much better speaker. Maybe just a more honest person. Well, no maybe there.


----------

