The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Are cash-grabbing doctors and the ensuing impact on patients not a legitimate concern about Obamacare? Just because it's not a desired result doesn't mean that it's not a foreseeable one.

Hmm ... lemme ponder this one a second, maybe there IS a tiny pinpoint of light in the Obamacare abyss.

If the doctors walk (and they seem quite happy to do so), then we get waiting lists ... but in the end, we might actually see some Medicare savings. It won't be from the lower rates, it'll be the enormous reduction in people able to get treatment.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Are you calling my doctor's office and my wife whom this was told to (and presented with the applications) a liar?

Change does affect change, whatever the reasons, and most of them are probably doesn't make things better.

I think my statement was pretty clear. Your anecdotal example failed to explain how A (Obamacare) led to B (Reduction in patients for your family doctor). Bringing your wife into this was a ridiculous way to try and make this personal, especially since she was told this by the doctor, she could be telling the truth even if the doctor was lying or mistaken.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure why Obamacare would force a doctor to have all his patients sign up with the same private insurance carrier.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Just found out that our longtime family physician, one of the best in the region, has to reduce the number of patients from 3000 to 600 due to "Affordable" Health Care Act. And those 600 has to apply to join MD VIP at $1600/year. Tell me again how increasing costs substantially and/or reducing his number of patients that gets quality care make us better off?

You enjoy talking about the free market... find another doctor .

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You enjoy talking about the free market... find another doctor .

The free market spurs competition too right? So you might even save money???

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Are cash-grabbing doctors and the ensuing impact on patients not a legitimate concern about Obamacare? Just because it's not a desired result doesn't mean that it's not a foreseeable one.

Is the Affordable Care Act the reason for this? The VIP programs have been on the rise for a while now and has nothing to do with "impending Obamacare doom".

Isn't that the effect of the 'boomers getting up in years and wanting to spend increasing money on health care?

SI

[fpres]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Just found out that our longtime family physician, one of the best in the region, has to reduce the number of patients from 3000 to 600 due to "Affordable" Health Care Act. And those 600 has to apply to join MD VIP at $1600/year. Tell me again how increasing costs substantially and/or reducing his number of patients that gets quality care make us better off?

MD VIP is marketed to physicians as a means of maintaining or increasing revenue while reducing patient population. This is exactly how it was depicted when I first ran across a recruiter at a conference a few years ago (well before ACA, by the way), and it's been the same story ever since. They apparently offer services or benefits not usually offered by traditional medical practices. The rationale is that the extras justify (pay for) the fees. What all of these services and benefits are, I'm not exactly sure of since I decided to go a different route.

What really catches my attention in your situation is the size of the cut to your family physician's patient panel. I can't fathom what essentially amounts to telling 80% of my established patients to take a hike. Most of the time, downsizing is gradual and done behind the scenes. It's far more common for physicians wishing to downsize to put a hold on accepting new patients and just allow attrition to take its course. An 80% cut makes me wonder if your doctor might be transitioning to retirement from the profession but is using this as an intermediate step to keep the income flowing for a bit longer.

Keeping accountable care organizations out of the conversation since that's a whole other animal, I think we're going to see more physicians adopting a similar business model but without the annual/monthly fees. Many have already done so under the name "Ideal Medical Practice". The core principle behind the IMP is reduced patient population made possible by minimization of overhead. So, no extra fees are required and additional services are still offered due to time being available. That's the model I ended up going with after getting out of traditional employed medicine.

[albionmoonlight]

One good thing about the Affordable Care Act is that is gives every business and/or doctor and/or insurance company something to blame when they choose and/or are forced to increase costs and/or reduce services.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like the GOP is going to battle with the IRS. Would love to see a movement toward a simplified tax that would significantly reduce the IRS's role.

House Republicans push to slash IRS budget by 24 percent, cite abuses and sequestration | Fox News

[JPhillips]

Unfortunately that's just a stunt that will make it harder to audit and encourage more cheating. Simplifying the tax code won't happen anytime soon as the people who pay for congress are generally quite happy with the complexity of the tax code.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Looks like the GOP is going to battle with the IRS. Would love to see a movement toward a simplified tax that would significantly reduce the IRS's role.

House Republicans push to slash IRS budget by 24 percent, cite abuses and sequestration | Fox News

Battle the IRS, my ass. This is just more of the "small enough to drown in a bathtub" boobery. The GOP has no desire to simplify the tax code any more than the Dems: how else do you get campaign donations. This just means that the same code is on the books but less people will actually be collecting it so more people can duck it. Hooray!

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Battle the IRS, my ass. This is just more of the "small enough to drown in a bathtub" boobery. The GOP has no desire to simplify the tax code any more than the Dems: how else do you get campaign donations. This just means that the same code is on the books but less people will actually be collecting it so more people can duck it. Hooray!

SI

A guy can dream, no????

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Battle the IRS, my ass. This is just more of the "small enough to drown in a bathtub" boobery. The GOP has no desire to simplify the tax code any more than the Dems: how else do you get campaign donations. This just means that the same code is on the books but less people will actually be collecting it so more people can duck it. Hooray!

SI

See - I think MBBF knows this and is just being disingenuous about the "benefits" of this. Because the alternative is just that he's stupid, which I don't believe, because he's obviously got a successful business. So instead he's lying and parroting the "company line" trying to win people over into how this is some altruistic thing that's going to improve the situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If it keeps money out of the government's hands ... clap clap clap afaic.

When they flatten the tax rate, I'll consider revisiting my position.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Is the Affordable Care Act the reason for this? The VIP programs have been on the rise for a while now and has nothing to do with "impending Obamacare doom".

Isn't that the effect of the 'boomers getting up in years and wanting to spend increasing money on health care?

Who knows, but this isn't the first time a doctor or business has attributed some new drastic action to Obamacare, where the Obamacare supporters come back and point out that it's not really a direct effect. If doctors and businesses are using Obamacare as an excuse to do things, I don't see what the difference is. That's a real-world issue for those patients. I guess we can't really know if these doctors and businesses would have done the same things anyway, even without Obamacare, I'm just saying those potential impacts "count" when evaluating the impact of Obamacare, even though it isn't a desired impact. That's one of the classic idealist/conservative debates - sometimes everything sounds great, in theory, until it's put into practice and you have all these potential undesirable impacts.

Edit: It's a similar dynamic with some of Obama's campaign promises that weren't fulfilled because of Republican obstructionism. A lot of people, like Hillary Clinton, criticized Obama on some of this stuff, saying that it was too optimistic. That was the whole knock on Obama. And when the criticism turned out to be accurate, somehow the broken promises weren't his fault.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Who knows, but this isn't the first time a doctor or business has attributed some new drastic action to Obamacare, where the Obamacare supporters come back and point out that it's not really a direct effect. If doctors and businesses are using Obamacare as an excuse to do things, I don't see what the difference is. That's a real-world issue for those patients. I guess we can't really know if these doctors and businesses would have done the same things anyway, even without Obamacare, I'm just saying those potential impacts "count" when evaluating the impact of Obamacare, even though it isn't a desired impact.

What if it's not really because of ACA but a change they were going to make anyway and this provides a convenient scapegoat. Does that make the scapegoat bad?

"I'm removing 80% of my patients because of waffles!" Are waffles suddenly bad?

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What if it's not really because of ACA but a change they were going to make anyway and this provides a convenient scapegoat. Does that make the scapegoat bad?

"I'm removing 80% of my patients because of waffles!" Are waffles suddenly bad?

SI

Sure, the scapegoat is bad, but government policy has to account for scapegoats and even criminals. Any government policy can be taken advantage of in nefarious ways, but that stuff should "count" against the effectiveness of the policy. You can't eliminate 100% of that stuff, but it counts, and if its widespread and defeats the purpose of the policy (not saying we're there yet), then it's a bad policy. You might have the greatest policy in the world on paper, but if it doesn't work in real life with real people, then it's bad.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, the scapegoat is bad, but government policy has to account for scapegoats and even criminals. Any government policy can be taken advantage of in nefarious ways, but that stuff should "count" against the effectiveness of the policy. You can't eliminate 100% of that stuff, but it counts, and if its widespread and defeats the purpose of the policy (not saying we're there yet), then it's a bad policy. You might have the greatest policy in the world on paper, but if it doesn't work in real life with real people, then it's bad.

Wow

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Wow

Wow yourself. Are you saying government shouldn't be considered with how policy may be abused? Should IT companies worry about security? Should large companies have PR departments? I'm not saying anything controversial here. The game isn't won with the idea alone. The important part is the execution and how the policy actually carries out what you want it to.

[cartman]

But they aren't abusing the policy. They are simply making shit up. Based on your criteria, it would be impossible to come up with a good policy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, the scapegoat is bad, but government policy has to account for scapegoats and even criminals. Any government policy can be taken advantage of in nefarious ways, but that stuff should "count" against the effectiveness of the policy. You can't eliminate 100% of that stuff, but it counts, and if its widespread and defeats the purpose of the policy (not saying we're there yet), then it's a bad policy. You might have the greatest policy in the world on paper, but if it doesn't work in real life with real people, then it's bad.

Doesn't that also give credence to arguments that spending cuts mean no roads or schools? That's an argument that you've been very much opposed to in the past.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But they aren't abusing the policy. They are simply making shit up.

What difference does it make? Let's say that while Obamacare was being debated, someone was concerned about this very possibility - doctors making widespread cash grabs, firing patients, drastically reducing the accessibility of care, at least in the short term, and using Obamacare as a scapegoat. Would that have been a legitimate concern? Or is that something that should have just been ignored because because it wasn't a desirable outcome. How would a pro-Obamacare supporter have responded? Would they have denied that would happen, admit that it could be an issue but there was a plan to minimize any damage to the patients, or just, I guess as you suggest they could have done, say, "hey, that's not a desired outcome so whatever, this is a brilliant plan on paper and that's all that counts!".

[cartman]

So we shouldn't implement a policy because those who are against it might make something up that is completely unrelated to the policy and use it to discredit the policy. Gotcha.

Wow.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Doesn't that also give credence to arguments that spending cuts mean no roads or schools? That's an argument that you've been very much opposed to in the past.

Nah, I'm not saying Obamacare is bad because of a handful of greedy doctors, I'm just saying the reality of greedy doctors should be accounted for and mitigated as much as possible. And maybe it is, I don't know. Maybe they thought of this, and it's just a minor setback, and all those fired patients will have great opportunities for affordable care elsewhere and it's a net gain for humanity. All I'm saying is that ALL of the negative impacts of a policy count against a policy, even the ones you think are someone else's fault (most negative impacts are going to be someone else's fault). That's part of the challenge of creating good policy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

So we shouldn't implement a policy because those who are against it might make something up that is completely unrelated to the policy and use it to discredit the policy. Gotcha.

Wow.

Right dude, we should never implement policy, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[JPhillips]

Federal spending cuts were the reason for the bridge collapse.

ergo we can't cut federal spending.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Right dude, we should never implement policy, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Then what are you saying? It seems to be that a policy has to handle any possible situation that could be attributed to it, be it true or false, before you can consider it a good policy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Nah, I'm not saying Obamacare is bad because of a handful of greedy doctors, I'm just saying the reality of greedy doctors should be accounted for and mitigated as much as possible. And maybe it is, I don't know. Maybe they thought of this, and it's just a minor setback, and all those fired patients will have great opportunities for affordable care elsewhere and it's a net gain for humanity. All I'm saying is that ALL of the negative impacts of a policy count against a policy, even the ones you think are someone else's fault (most negative impacts are going to be someone else's fault). That's part of the challenge of creating good policy.

But in the real world how to you account for people doing things and blaming unconnected policy for the effects? It certainly seems like your idea would give all the power to groups of people that could find any tenuous connection to any policy.

At some point don't you have to try to reasonably discern if and how actions and policy are connected?

[JPhillips]

I think it's fair to look at Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates and how they might incentivize doctors to reduce patient loads. That should be a part of the discussion. But, I don't see how you can predict and plan for people making claims that don't hold up under scrutiny.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But in the real world how to you account for people doing things and blaming unconnected policy for the effects? It certainly seems like your idea would give all the power to groups of people that could find any tenuous connection to any policy.

At some point don't you have to try to reasonably discern if and how actions and policy are connected?

Maybe it's 100% unforeseeable that anyone would try to use politically-charged policy to their advantage, but I doubt it. Again, I'm not saying that that all of Obamcare should have been scrapped over any legitimate concern, just that these concerns are legitimate and should be addressed, if possible. Why is that so crazy?

Let me go back a few posts. Let's say Obama is having a meeting an an adviser says, "hey boss, I have a concern, this healthcare thing is so politically charged, I've talked to some people in the medical profession, they think some doctors are going to use the anger over this as a way to make money grabs and leave some patients out on the street."

I think there would be two perfectly valid responses to that from Obama. 1. "That is a concern, and might cause some short-term issues, but I think those patients will be OK because of X and Y, and the plan does so much good for so many other people, so it's a net gain, we're good", or 2. "that is a concern, let's make sure that it's more difficult for doctors to do this, or that patients have reasonable heads-up by doing X and Y". Or, I guess what you and cartman would advocate, is for him to just say, "well, fuck them, not our problem, that's between the doctors and the patients, I'm not going to spend a second worrying about anything that isn't a direct black and white impact of this. I don't have the stomach for that real-world human nature stuff."

Edit: Or maybe there's a 4, that nobody thought of it so it was never discussed and accounted for. I don't really believe that, but even assuming that no human being anywhere could have predicted such a reaction, it's still an inherent weakness of the policy. Not necessarily one that can't be easily overcome in the long-term, but if the problem was big enough that the policy didn't work because of it, then it's not a good policy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think it's fair to look at Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates and how they might incentivize doctors to reduce patient loads. That should be a part of the discussion.

Great, then we're on the same page.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But, I don't see how you can predict and plan for people making claims that don't hold up under scrutiny.

I'm not sure that it was necessarily 100% unforseeable that some doctors would react like this. And hey, maybe the policymakers DID forsee it, and Obamacare, on the whole will do a great job of mitigating it. Then great! All I'm saying is that when history is written, and we're looking at whether Obamacare worked or not, everything that happens in the real-world execution of this counts towards that analysis. How much of any failures we can specifically blame on any one person is a whole different analysis. But I think often in the liberal/conservative traditional debate, this is a big thing. How we hope things work v. how we're worried shit might really go down. An optimistic, let's go for it view v. a more pessimistic, shit's going to get fucked up view. I don't think either one is inherently correct (and we probably need a little of both), but I don't think the left side can just completely disregard the real-world slip-ups part. That's one of the points of the whole debate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe it's 100% unforeseeable that anyone would try to use politically-charged policy to their advantage, but I doubt it. Again, I'm not saying that that all of Obamcare should have been scrapped over any legitimate concern, just that these concerns are legitimate and should be addressed, if possible. Why is that so crazy?

Let me go back a few posts. Let's say Obama is having a meeting an an adviser says, "hey boss, I have a concern, this healthcare thing is so politically charged, I've talked to some people in the medical profession, they think some doctors are going to use the anger over this as a way to make money grabs and leave some patients out on the street."

I think there would be two perfectly valid responses to that from Obama. 1. "That is a concern, and might cause some short-term issues, but I think those patients will be OK because of X and Y, and the plan does so much good for so many other people, so it's a net gain, we're good", or 2. "that is a concern, let's make sure that it's more difficult for doctors to do this, or that patients have reasonable heads-up by doing X and Y". Or, I guess what you and cartman would advocate, is for him to just say, "well, fuck them, not our problem, that's between the doctors and the patients, I'm not going to spend a second worrying about anything that isn't a direct black and white impact of this. I don't have the stomach for that real-world human nature stuff."

Isn't that exactly the same as when you say racism charges against the Tea Party are bullshit or bringing up roads/schools as an argument against any spending cuts is bullshit? With some policies you seem to very clearly favor having clearly established connections between political argument and policy outcome.

And I'd argue that #1 is what happens with people of all ideological stripes. Certainly there was plenty of discussion around here that there would be problems with ACA, but overall it is better than status quo.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe it's 100% unforeseeable that anyone would try to use politically-charged policy to their advantage, but I doubt it. Again, I'm not saying that that all of Obamcare should have been scrapped over any legitimate concern, just that these concerns are legitimate and should be addressed, if possible. Why is that so crazy?

Let me go back a few posts. Let's say Obama is having a meeting an an adviser says, "hey boss, I have a concern, this healthcare thing is so politically charged, I've talked to some people in the medical profession, they think some doctors are going to use the anger over this as a way to make money grabs and leave some patients out on the street."

I think there would be two perfectly valid responses to that from Obama. 1. "That is a concern, and might cause some short-term issues, but I think those patients will be OK because of X and Y, and the plan does so much good for so many other people, so it's a net gain, we're good", or 2. "that is a concern, let's make sure that it's more difficult for doctors to do this, or that patients have reasonable heads-up by doing X and Y". Or, I guess what you and cartman would advocate, is for him to just say, "well, fuck them, not our problem, that's between the doctors and the patients, I'm not going to spend a second worrying about anything that isn't a direct black and white impact of this. I don't have the stomach for that real-world human nature stuff."

So you are basing your stuff off of a hypothetical meeting where there is no record of a question like that ever being raised in reality? And if this hypothetical meeting did actually take place and happened like you said, how do you know that Reponse #1 was the answer, and not the one you seem to believe that JPhillips and I are advocating? Response #2 would actually be a new policy, and then there could be a whole other set of falsehoods attached to it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Isn't that exactly the same as when you say racism charges against the Tea Party are bullshit or bringing up roads/schools as an argument against any spending cuts is bullshit? With some policies you seem to very clearly favor having clearly established connections between political argument and policy outcome.

You've totally lost me on the road thing. I think we actually agree. Potential indirect impacts of policy should be considered when making policy. Negative potential impacts should be mitigated as much as possible.

I think we only disagree about how to characterize these indirect negatives afterwards. I would say that this is a strike against Obamacare (recognizing that it could be an irrelevant strike, or one that is easily outweighed by the good). Where you and cartman would say (correct me if I'm wrong), that this doesn't even really count as a "strike", because it's someone else's fault, and not a direct impact of the policy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

You've totally lost me on the road thing. I think we actually agree. Potential indirect impacts of policy should be considered when making policy. Negative potential impacts should be mitigated as much as possible.

I think we only disagree about how to characterize these indirect negatives afterwards. I would say that this is a strike against Obamacare (recognizing that it could be an irrelevant strike, or one that is easily outweighed by the good). Where you and cartman would say (correct me if I'm wrong), that this doesn't even really count as a "strike", because it's someone else's fault, and not a direct impact of the policy.

You've argued repeatedly that saying any spending cuts leads to no roads or schools is bullshit demagoguery, and you've said the same thing about arguments regarding racism and the Tea Parties. In other places you recognize that there is a difference between things that can be directly connected and potentially false arguments geared to push a political agenda.

[cartman]

So if I tell customers that I can't work on their computer unless they pay me a fee due to regulations in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that is a strike against the the CFAA? Even though there is no such language in the bill?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by cartman

So if I tell customers that I can't work on their computer unless they pay me a fee due to regulations in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that is a strike against the the CFAA? Even though there is no such language in the bill?

Depends how likely your customers are to believe it. How does the knowledge base of your customers regarding CFAA compare to health care customers knowledge base regarding health care reform?

[Passacaglia]

And it depends on prevalence. I don't know anything about the CFAA. Would you expect many people in your position to charge such fees? And if so, what kind of response would there be from your customers, and how would that response compare to Buccaneer's?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Depends how likely your customers are to believe it. How does the knowledge base of your customers regarding CFAA compare to health care customers knowledge base regarding health care reform?

I haven't heard of a mis-information campaign targeted at the CFAA.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You've argued repeatedly that saying any spending cuts leads to no roads or schools is bullshit demagoguery, and you've said the same thing about arguments regarding racism and the Tea Parties.

It is. Doctors exploiting Obamacare to make money grabs and fire patients is also bullshit. I'm not saying that's awesome behavior. I'm not saying that anyone who supports Obamacare also supports those doctors. That's where your comparison breaks down. It's not racist to argue in favor of government fiscal restraint. And it's not pro-greedy doctor to argue that Obamacare, as a whole, is still a good policy in spite of those possibly minor setbacks.

Edit: And tea party supporters would be WELL advised to be very aware of the crazies in their ranks and how to neutralize or minimize them. Same with OWS, if that still exists. Plenty of otherwise good policies or organizations fail because of exploitation by crazies, criminals, or the unethical. Those roadblocks should be addressed to the extent possible. In the same way, policymakers should seek to mitigate the impact of the criminals and greedy doctors, not just wave their hand and disclaim responsibility.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by cartman

I haven't heard of a mis-information campaign targeted at the CFAA.

Eh, stuff like that is why I don't like getting involved in the political thread. Is there something you're trying to say here?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Eh, stuff like that is why I don't like getting involved in the political thread. Is there something you're trying to say here?

Trying to make an apples to apples comparison. Molson clearly stated that he thought it was a strike against the ACA that someone could make up something not related to the bill and try to blame the bill for that action. Same thing with me charging a fee for computer work, and then trying to blame the CFAA as the reason I had to charge the fee, when there is nothing in the bill to support a fee.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

So if I tell customers that I can't work on their computer unless they pay me a fee due to regulations in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that is a strike against the the CFAA? Even though there is no such language in the bill?

If the CFAA encouraged tens of thousands of IT guys to stop working on computers, and small businesses were struggling to get adequate IT support, than ya, I think maybe we should re-revist the CFAA. I can't imagine why you think that would be a bad idea. You would just want to continue on with any policy because you like how it works theoretically, regardless of any indirect real-world obstacles?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

If the CFAA encouraged tens of thousands of IT guys to stop working on computers, and small businesses were struggling to get adequate IT support, than ya, I think maybe we should re-revist the CFAA. I can't imagine why you think that would be a bad idea. You would just want to continue on with any policy because you like how it works theoretically, regardless of any indirect real-world obstacles?

So there we have it. Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

So there we have it.

Wow.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

So there we have it. Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

What's the object of policy, just to have the idea in the first place, or to implement something positive in society?

If criminals or the unethical are hindering the positive impact of a policy, you can prosecute the criminals, or regulate the unethical behavior. Every policy does this to some extent. That's not that wild and crazy an idea. You can't eliminate all criminal or unethical activity, but you can be aware of it and mitigate it. If you fail to do that, or its impossible, and the criminal or unethical activity completely neuters the intended impact of the policy, then the policy failed. Apparently, you would still consider such a policy a success.

Edit: What would happen if an IT project was destroyed because of a virus? Would you say, "hey, not my fault, someone else put that virus here!" Or would your client have a question or two about your security plan?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

If the CFAA encouraged tens of thousands of IT guys to stop working on computers, and small businesses were struggling to get adequate IT support, than ya, I think maybe we should re-revist the CFAA. I can't imagine why you think that would be a bad idea. You would just want to continue on with any policy because you like how it works theoretically, regardless of any indirect real-world obstacles?

The breakdown in your thinking is your unsubstantiated claim that the ACA is encouraging tens of thousands of doctors to stop working.

You're taking one (or several for that matter) anecdotal examples of something happening, for a reason (which even Jon admits seems to not pass the smell test), and blowing that up to TENS OF THOUSANDS of doctors quitting for a reason that doesn't pass the smell test to the guy on this board who is self-acknowledged to be the furthest-right poster on the board.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The breakdown in your thinking is your unsubstantiated claim that the ACA is encouraging tens of thousands of doctors to stop working.

Nope, I'm definitely not making that claim. if this is limited to this one doctor in Colorado, then this is a completely irrelevant strike with almost zero impact on Obamacare as a whole. I'm not making any argument regarding the impact of this issue on Obamacare, because I really don't know what it is or will be. As I've said, the policymakers could have planned for this, they may know about the risk, but they may have accounted for it and feel it won't be a big problem. Fine. I'm just saying indirect impacts can effect policy, policymakers should attempt to account for such indirect impacts, and that those indirect impacts can ultimately play a big part in whether a policy succeeds or not.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't see what the difference is. That's a real-world issue for those patients. I guess we can't really know if these doctors and businesses would have done the same things anyway, even without Obamacare, I'm just saying those potential impacts "count" when evaluating the impact of Obamacare, even though it isn't a desired impact.

So if a predictided outcome occurs based on a false premis, then any (and all) premis with the same predicted outcome should be deemed creditable?

This seems dangerously close to self fullfillimg prophecy and cultral racism/sterotypes.

Hamilton seems to argue this point in his if men were angles the controls of government would not be needed quote. Perhaps, our system is set up explicitly to address and defeat the lesser angles arguments.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Nope, I'm definitely not making that claim. if this is limited to this one doctor in Colorado, then this is a completely irrelevant strike with almost zero impact on Obamacare as a whole.

If this guy has been Bucc's family doctor for what did he say, like 35 years, then he's obviously getting damn close to retirement age. How is his ageing and wanting to retire the fault of the ACA at all??