In addition to a massive influx of new patients (like with Medicare Part-D), Obama-care would be a boon for our on-site clinics and Take-Care clinics. I think what will eventually come out is NOT the one-payer socialized-care (that Obama REALLY wants), but something similiar to Romney-Care which would increase Medicaid coverage, mandate business/individuals to provide/buy insurance. There's not enough primary care docs, so ARNPs (nurse practitioners who can diagnose and prescribe) and PACs (physician assitants) will pick up the slack. Walmart clinics have been an embarrassment, CVS has closes many clinics for the rest of the year, Walgreens clinics are going strong and expanding rapidly.
OK, I read the article. The key take away line is this one:
"The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory...."
Which, to me, means that the Doctor does not have to conform to the "guideline".
Nonetheless, that will never happen in the USA simply because there are too many folks in this country that demand that every fetus is protected no matter what, let alone babies born prematurely.
In any event, what that has to do with WAG is questionable.
Palin says Obama is creating a death panel. Who lives and who dies? How will you feel if the government decides that someone you care about will not receive treatment for their medical condition? You also will not have the option of paying for any treatments even if you have the money because no cash payments will be allowed unless you travel to another country. Need a transplant then go to Malaysia. Need a hip replacement then go the China. Even if your approved in this country for a treatment wait in line because there are the same amount of doctors and 50 million more people including illegals using the system.
Lets put something together and give you something to think about. In April Obama had an interview with the NY Times. He is quoted that he wanted a committee to oversee health care. This is also stated in HB 3200. This committee will set the guideline for Health care. OK Well in England (one of the models that is being hyped) A woman delivered a premature baby 21 weeks 5 days. According to the article the health committed in England has a stipulation that a baby born younger then 22 weeks will recieve no health care. Food for thought
It is my understanding the "public" option Obama proposes will be run through third party insurance carriers. So what is "public" about that? People who are uninsured can go out and buy insurance as it is.
I don't think much is going to be accomplished with this plan other than more layers of government, increased taxation, and confusion.
Obama wants a public option to compete with private insurers. That's what's pragmatic, that's what he's going to get, and that's what makes him middle of the road.
Still, I wish he'd include incentives to be healthy, and exclude handouts, particularly the stupid scooters.
I'm more of a Republican on this issue, tell you the truth.
Obama: SEIU Health care forum 3/24/07
“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”
Irun, are you still on board with this, being "middle of the road" as you state?
Anything, EXCEPT a one-payer socialized system, would be good for Walgreens.
So when is he telling the truth? Does he want a public option to compete with private insurance, or a one-payer socialized healthcare with NO private insurance industry? Is he a centrist/pragmatist or far-left (Big Brother knows best so everyone fall in line) loon?
These are his words:
All Hail Obama... the stimulus seems to be working.. the market is up, he's fixing health care. He's selling cars, and helping make the planet green.
Let's see...find Bin Laden, do a few more things internationally....and the messes of the last 8 years will be cleaned up.
Not bad for the first 6 months.
We have 15 million unemployed counting all of them. We have 35 million on food stamps we have 1 in 25 homes in foreclosure we have 1000 banks in financial trouble Wish you were right, but with the above facts all the upside is media. Am hoping very much not to see another large correction but stay very close to computer and phone. Purpose is to make money could care less about the politics Do not want to get caught in a market meltdown. this is possible due to the public not buying and the cash burn from stimulus, clunkers, is about over plus the national debt is horrendous. The current market upticks, foreclosures, unemployment and bank receiverships mirrors the great depression to a T where the market made a rally after the crash then crashed again. The elderly have said the unemployment rate reached 25% and the public unable to pay there mortgages just walked away from there homes. This is now happening at a fairly rapid rate even now and is very bad for the banking sector. The big banks are going to show red ink probably this winter. good luck with your bets