Now that the election is over:

[PrincessFiona]

it was actually on our state ballot They attempted to amend our Constitution. It was a state issue that framed the national race for the state. Signage everywhere 1 man 1 woman.

[PrincessFiona]

I didnt vote for either main party btw

[Michele]

Ideally, my veterinary education wouldn't have cost me individually so much that I feel the need to be so strongly compensated afterwards.

[PrincessFiona]

Good news for us on election night we got rid of the school board members and started fresh. YAY democracy!

[SoonerTexan]

Also, DADT and gay marriage are two separate issues. Closely related, but still separate.

[GrayMatterWife]

I find this interesting. I look at FEMA's responses and Medicare's 3% overhead costs and think that the federal government can DEFINITELY be the most responsive and least wasteful in some aspects. Not all, certainly -- but more than none.



Can you expand on this? What do you mean?

The waste involved with Katrina was absolutely staggering. Too long to catalogue. So far, not at all impressed with FEMA in Staten Island.

Re: taxing--ObamaCare is a taxing mandate. Obama can keep saying it isn't, but that is contrary to the position his administration took before the Supreme Court--and, the ONLY reason that the legislation was upheld (in part) was on the determination that it was a proper exercise of the Constitutional taxing power. If you are in violation of the law, the fine will be extracted from you in the form of a tax. And, the federal government is using this taxing authority to now involve itself in the most intimate decisions of our lives--our medical care. The government--like any power--abhors competition and eventually will seek to grow itself authority. Once you give up this autonomy, there is no winning it back. I've been to Ireland and watched my husband practice there. Nationalized, government-run healthcare is a nightmare of research stagnancy and patient complacency. Not to mention every resident we knew there was desperate to get out...and usually with hopes of coming to the States!

[GrayMatterWife]

I didnt vote for either main party btw

I refused to vote for a down-ticket Republican candidate at the state level and declined to vote for three Democrats in uncontested judicial elections here in GA. I am not a straight-party ticket person, either, and I don't vote for someone just because they don't have competition. I voted against a tax raise proposal and for a charter school proposal. Public education here is like a death sentence for some kids. We need more options.

[PrincessFiona]

the problem is that medical education is not cheap in this country. Taxes will have to go up and reimbursement will have to go down there is no other way around it. Maybe I am experiencing post election depression!

[diggitydot]

Re: taxing--ObamaCare is a taxing mandate. Obama can keep saying it isn't, but that is contrary to the position his administration took before the Supreme Court--and, the ONLY reason that the legislation was upheld (in part) was on the determination that it was a proper exercise of the Constitutional taxing power. If you are in violation of the law, the fine will be extracted from you in the form of a tax. And, the federal government is using this taxing authority to now involve itself in the most intimate decisions of our lives--our medical care. The government--like any power--abhors competition and eventually will seek to grow itself authority. Once you give up this autonomy, there is no winning it back. I've been to Ireland and watched my husband practice there. Nationalized, government-run healthcare is a nightmare of research stagnancy and patient complacency. Not to mention every resident we knew there was desperate to get out...and usually with hopes of coming to the States!

Our system isn't nationalized, government-run healthcare. But how, specifically, does the PPACA "control healthcare access and decisions"?

[MsSassyBaskets]

Socialism positions in countrs physician salaries in these countries are abysmal is that something you can accept after all of these years of medical school and training? Also how do socialists justify taking money to put into social programs for those who do not earn as much? Should I do cations and innovation be rewarded financially if not how how should people be rewarded for innovation education and hard work? Fyi I used to post as the commymommy.

I realize I am really grappling with my political views this is why I am asking

I'll bite -- I don't think that physician pay in countries with fully or partially socialized medicine is that bad. Germany is a good example of a blended public and private system -- primary care physicians make $130K. Orthos make $324K in the UK. In many of these countries, the cost of a medical education is not as high as it is here, so the issue of loan payback is moot. In addition, the issues of lawsuits and high-priced malpractice insurance play out differently in other countries, so you have to weigh all the factors. I grew up in a home in which the net income was probably less than $40K for a family of four for most of my childhood. My parents owned our home, we never went hungry, and we went to college on grants and loans. Average physician incomes here and in most other countries still strike me as incredible wealth.

People don't earn less because they choose to. I was very fortunate to have parents who thought a lot about how to educate me and help me finance a college education. Not everyone has the background, education and resources to do that. If I had been born to parents who didn't understand the importance of education, I might be stuck in the cycle of poverty myself. In many cases, the cycle of poverty is too strong to be broken in one, or two, or three generations. Until we put everyone on an equal footing from the beginning -- with access to health care, education, healthy food, etc. -- I'm not going to judge someone's income or relative contribution to society.

[GrayMatterWife]

it was actually on our state ballot They attempted to amend our Constitution. It was a state issue that framed the national race for the state. Signage everywhere 1 man 1 woman.

Wait, wait...gay marriage and "definition of marriage" legislation is different than DADT. DADT involves the federal government requiring dishonesty in the name of national security--a ridiculous argument. I always thought the argument against gays serving in the military was stupid (if the Israelis can make it work, I bet we can). And I deplored DADT because it was quintessentially Clintonian (and it was a Democrat who came up with the brilliant idea): it made lying OK. People who serve take an oath. Don't ask them to do a disservice to that oath by being dishonest.

Marriage is a religious institution. I think the government should stay the heck out of the issue. I've always thought that. Dump all language re: marriage, leave it to the religious institutions, and create civil unions. And I know a lot of Republicans who feel the same way. I don't care who you're "unioned" with...and I hope my heterosexual union doesn't bother you.

I don't general vote on "social" issues, anyway. Experience has taught me that American has a strong internal moral compass. We f**k it up for a while (Dredd Scott, Plessy v Ferguson), but we eventually get it right (Brown v Board). I don't clamor for laws that shove morality down my throat because values can be dictated, but not forcibly adopted. I vote based on fiscal policy and national security.

[PrincessFiona]

My husband is a German physician. His peers in Germany are currently earning between 50,0o0 and 70000. and there is a very different political climate with in the medical community. Also I would respond to being a patient in a German would respond to being a patient in a German system. My experiences in Germany as a patient were mostly positive. American patients are just used to being pampered more like I said though I had mostly positive experiences I think there is a lot of waste in the United States. I would start with ending private rooms for patients not cutting salaries for doctors though

[diggitydot]

My husband is a German physician. His peers in Germany are currently earning between 50,0o0 and 70000. and there is a very different political climate with in the medical community. Also I would respond to being a patient in a German would respond to being a patient in a German system. My experiences in Germany as a patient were mostly positive. American patients are just used to being pampered more like I said though I had mostly positive experiences I think there is a lot of waste in the United States. I would start with ending private rooms for patients not cutting salaries for doctors though

There is a metric shit ton of waste in medicine. It's mind-boggling.

[MsSassyBaskets]

My husband is a German physician. His peers in Germany are currently earning between 50,0o0 and 70000. and there is a very different political climate with in the medical community. Also I would respond to being a patient in a German would respond to being a patient in a German system. My experiences in Germany as a patient were mostly positive. American patients are just used to being pampered more like I said though I had mostly positive experiences I think there is a lot of waste in the United States. I would start with ending private rooms for patients not cutting salaries for doctors though

Agree with you and DD -- I think there are ways to cut on both sides. I'm just saying that for some, the expectations for a doctor salary have gotten really out of whack. This is partially due to our treating both medicine and education as money-making industries.

[GrayMatterWife]

Our system isn't nationalized, government-run healthcare. But how, specifically, does the PPACA "control healthcare access and decisions"?

It will be. It will quickly become nationalized. And the government will totally f**k it up. Again, the government is a power blackhole that sucks in everything. If you give an inch (and we gave way more than that here), it will take a million miles. I work for the federal government... This is a door to yet another entitlement. There will be no limit to how much the government can tax you for, if you don't perform.

For starters, it dictates what constitutes a qualified program. That's a huge issue for me. The federal government has now told me what constitutes an acceptable program for me to buy. It's not just a matter of "making sure" that I have insurance. I have to carry qualified insurance. It has a panel of non-medical specialists that will (not now ,but in the future) help to determine the parameters of what qualifies a care that must be covered. And, for me, what is most frightening is the latitude that administrative law bodies will have. Have you ever dealt with a private insurance company in a coverage dispute? That's bad enough. You will have absolutely no recourse to the federal government's decisions. The fed determines that some course of coverage is not optimal, or financially "in the best interest" or otherwise not appropriate, your insurance company is covered. It's over. Basically, the law shunts off (like all truly awful federal laws do) the administration of the law to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. But, I mean, it's not like it will be completely crazy, like the unelected head of the HHR is suddenly going to determine what is a "church"...oh, wait...

It's crazy. We have poor people who need health insurance and the answer is: make the system worse for the people who are already part of it? I have less freedom, less control, and am now subject to a potential tax because we couldn't figure out how to be charitable...and instead turned charitable healthcare efforts into a national takeover of health care distribution. And it is important to remember: despite what some on the far left think, the federal government is NOT a charity. It is, like ALL governments are, a mechanism for wealth redistribution (which, despite the right's histrionics, is not always bad). But governments do not redistribute wealth based on charity--they redistribute based on self-preservation and self-interest. Why did Obama bail out the auto industry? To buy union votes. Duh. Hardly rock science there. Why has he done pretty much nothing to help poverty in the rural south? No votes to buy. ObamaCare is a way of controlling wealth under the auspices of moral imperative and purported charity.

I am just very grateful that the state participation requirement portion of the law was struck down and many states are opting out. And that the Court has left open the door to a constitutional challenge re: the HHR artificial contraception requirement.