birdog1960

don't think it's hyperbole. the guy seems to have less than average intelligence among the US population much less among nfl coaches, who are generally pretty smart. never understood why he was hired in the first place and am wondering more and more each day.

gailey is quite possibly the least intelligent current nfl head coach. what a retard.

sure, like big employers needed an excuse to make people part time. just a growing, sleazy trend. how many of these jobs had good benefits and good insurance before the aca?

i never get tired of thanksgiving casseroles. hope our friends have made either green bean or broccoli casserole. mmmm, mmmm

i think a decade is the earliest that will happen and i think that's a long time since it's about 15% of the avg lifespan and 25% of the avg career. it's still another couple years til the ACA is fully rolled out. then there's another prez election in 4 years...

no problem. i think he can use the word of mouth publicity seeing that he's only had 500 of the 45's pressed.

going to friends in a couple hours. pretty sure it will be traditional but possibly the turkey will be finished on a weber grill. bringing from scratch key lime pie and hummingbird cake, beer and wine.

update: this was my favorite song from jd mcpherson's set but was unreleased. til now http://www.jdmcpherson.com/ too bad i still don't have a turntable and that he wants 7 bucks! c'mon jd....

oh boy, indeed. your argument and calculus rests on the assumption that the us is soon going to a single payor system. even the most ardent supporter of a canadian styled system doesn't believe this. it will be a long time coming if it ever comes. and yes, then, malpractice reform will be an absolute economic necessity.....and would be very desirable, right now, as it is.

we're paying for lots of stuff (and remember, "we're" includes self employed docs, one of the reasons i sold out). we're paying for the uninsured (yes, cost shifting is very inefficient), we're paying for many over users of health resources who believe that everything can be fixed if enough tests and procedures are done or that their misery from their lot in life is a medical problem. we're paying for drug advertising that results in people falsely believing that more expensive equals better. we're paying for fraud and abuse. we're paying for excess capacity of hospital beds and technology like mri 's and pet scanners that while very useful are plentiful because they're major profit centers for hospitals. we're paying for malpractice costs and fears that are born from greed in most cases. and not least we're paying for salaries and profits of the health insurance industry that is entirely superfluous and adds nothing to the system. in short, we're paying for for-profit medicine. and on those happy notes, i wish everyone a happy thanksgiving.

you must have been an employed physician all your career...have you ever run the business side of a practice? obviously, us neurosurgeons have higher collections than canadian neurosurgeons, on average. the disparity in collections more than compensates for the disparity in the expense of malpractice insurance to the extent that on avg they make about double the net income of canadian neurosurgeons. this inability to understand must be an affectation...right? and "failing" by your definition, of course. the majority of canadians and brits are satisfied with their systems. for the umpteenth time, on measures of outcomes as a function of cost they are doing quite well. the current us system (medicare fee for service or even worse, managed care medicare) is going broke very rapidly. private insurance premiums are rising much faster than inflation to the point where many private companies are dropping coverage or making employees pay portions many can't afford and the vast number of uninsured increases daily. but that's not failing to you?

yes, very pretty. but i meant i thought the hospital care was great. was later transferred to buffalo where i was less impressed with the care.

spent some time in orillia a few years back with a family member. thought it was great.

no objection by me for those that want to pay more than taxes for their care to got tiered service. such a system still provides basic care to everyone and a bit more for those that are willing to pay more. the main objective for many involved in healthcare planning is universal care. concierge, gold plated, extraordinary care doesn't need to be part of the deal nor should it be.

wow, they wait the longest for plastic surgery! that's awful. shortest for oncology...makes sense. but this is what it comes down to in my estimation: everybody gets care but not as quickly for a covered pt in traditional fee for service market (e.g. us). as i've said ad nauseum, this still results in better overall outcomes throughout the system in most cases.but that's not what matters to the cons on the board. they don't care about how the changes will affect the system overall but how it will affect them or people like them. and if they're insured well, it will likely make wait times longer. the fact that many uninsured people will have much better care and thus likely improve the overall health of the nation, is irrelevant.

and his collections are $350000 more...he brings home more.but keep demonizing without basis. you're not convincing but that's all you got.here's another piece of information that gives us some insight into how this will work or not work: massachusettes. romneycare is very similar to obamacare. and romney was very proud of it til he realized he couldn't win the republican nomination supporting it. and it's done pretty well. none of the disasters you're predicting have come to pass. there's still some of the best doctors in the world at the brigham. there are very few uninsured. costs haven't decreased but aren't out of line with the rest of the country.

isn't it time that you do some research and prove me wrong? if i present data that supports my position yall ignore it but give no evidence to support yours. it's impossible to do statistical analysis with no statistics. so go ahead. find me some numbers on outcomes for the conditions you mentioned.ya see, the difference is that those systems take care of the most urgent and serious problems first, even for poor people. and the elective stuff has to wait even for people like tytt (even after has put on clean underwear and put madden down to go to the doctors). and that's more efficient, costs less and generally results in better outcomes when looked at over the entire system (including poor people).

the income figures cited are exclusive of malpractice costs i.e. take home pay. but i can understand why you want to confuse the issue. healthcare debates on this board remind me of this discussion: european sport coupes are as good as american ones. the 1/4 mile times, lateral g's,accident avoidance, reliability and mile time around pocono are all better. yeah,but, a car is very subjective and they had top end michelins on that car when the american car had goodyear eagles. and they had better drivers. and, well, i just don't like european sport coupes. you would think that same american think tank would have come up with some damning outcome statistics by now to use in the last election against obamacare. maybe like wait time dependent illness outcomes with diseases like melanoma or acute leukemia or small cell cancer of the lung (sorry 3rd MI and unstable angina numbers are pretty easy to compare and i don't thi k there's much difference) but this data doesn't seem to exist. and it probably won't soon come to light as those places have stopped looking. they lost.

never seen wait times for surgery reported as a medical outcome. you've redefined the term as currently used in scholarly publications. but ok. wait times are longer. no argument. but again, wasn'[t the discussion about the quality of doctors and ability to attract good ones? average neurosurgeon made somewhere around 250K in canada in the stats i found. even after expenses, do you know any that made less than double that here? and good job cherry picking miami which is probably the worst spot in the country for that stat. i guess i asked for twisted statistics and i got em. and your assurance that the numbers will be different is convincing as mine sans the data.

avg tuition for canadian med school is about 13K so not much different than in state tuition to a us med school and when you're talking about halving a neurosurgeons salary the tuition differences become pretty insignificant. the difference in population is mitigated by the difference in available spots. it's the percentage admitted that is salient to the discussion and those numbers are very similar. show me some "twisted" statistics that support your position. in earlier discussions on comparisons of quality of care, what has been presented here are criticisms of the type of data i'm presenting but never original data that shows the opposing contention. let's see it.

no, i asked for data specifically refuting that admissions to med schools in 2 large socialized systems are comparable to admissions to us med schools. the question being discussed is whether the affordable care act will lead to lower quality doctors. i've cited evidence that it won't. you've cited none. and one more piece of evidence: there are some pretty qualified docs in mass. in places like boston and they have a system very similar to obamacare (some good reading in last months esquire about romneycare. bet you didn't know his portrait as governor in the state house has him holding that bill in one hand.)

so you're admitting you have no data to base your contention on.

citation? and for the sake of argument lets ignore outcomes 9although i'd be very interested in your supporting data. how do you hand wave away the level of competition for med school spots in these well established socialized medicine systems?

look at the data. then cite some that supports your contention and refutes mine.

that's probably because your intuition is gordon gecko like. "b." is just not true as illustrated by my references. it's just as competitive to get into a canadian or uk med school as compared to a us school despite the fact that orthopedists or neurosurgeons often make less than1/2 of their counterparts in the us. i'll take data over your intuition every time. oh, and their outcomes data are comparable despite lower costs...wonder why costs are lower?