Melinda Henneberger, anchor blogger for She the People, The Washington Post’s women’s blog, and Matt Bai, chief political correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, look back at the week's political news.
The best and the brightest DO NOT go to med school. They go into banking careers where the prospect of princely reward for less work is much higher. There are plenty of well-qualified med school candidates who will forgo getting rich from the injury and sickness of others but who definitely should not go broke because they choose to do so. If it takes a new branch of government service with its own schools and academy and hospitals then so be it.Why do you think the nations healthcare bill is such a high percentage of GDP. Other countries provide the same (better if you take into account the number of uninsured citizens) than we do. It is time to change the game.
In the US your wait depends on how rich you are, and in most countries your wait depends on how sick you are.
I'm not crying over the rich person who has to wait for a knee replacement, and you're not crying for the poor person who has to wait for a kidney replacement.
You'll be crying your own river when you have to wait 2 months for an appointment due to a doctor shortage.
"Do you think people smart enough to be doctors couldn't find something else to do for a living?"
And if what they care most about is getting rich, they should.
"Do we really expect doctors to be paid at rates far below people shoving paper around? (It's called the financial market)
If the base of comparison is Wall Street traders, I guess doctors should minister exclusively to Saudi Princes.
"Do we really expect the best & brightest to go to college for 4 years, medical school for 4 years, and then residency training and earn as much as a teacher?"
You mean be paid a reasonable upper middle-class salary like doctors in most other industrialized countries?
"Do you have any idea how much all that training costs, both in dollars..."
With which they could be assisted, as they are in other developed countries.
"& in putting the rest of their lives on hold?"
And all they'll get is an above average salary, prestige, and meaningful work. Cry me a river.
Do you think people smart enough to be doctors couldn't find something else to do for a living?
Do we really expect doctors to be paid at rates far below people shoving paper around? (It's called the financial market)
Do we really expect the best & brightest to go to college for 4 years, medical school for 4 years, and then residency training and earn as much as a teacher? Do you have any idea how much all that training costs, both in dollars & in putting the rest of their lives on hold?
@David from VA -
My scheme would snap that pretty quickly as an ever-increasing segment of the population is covered ONLY by MediCare. A doctor would be shutting the door on half the potential market.
Doctors are leaving Medicare participation in increasing numbers. The terrible reimbursements coupled with ever more onerous regulations are the cause.
Why do my taxes have to pay for health insurance for congress, the supreme court and the president when we pay $20,000 a year for our health insurance that doesn't really cover that much. I think health insurance is a ponzi scheme just waiting to collapse just like the financial markets did. I would have been happy with LOWERING the age of eligibillity for Medicare to age 0. The LAST thing I want is to have to continue to deal with the corrupt insurance companies AFTER I turn age 65.
Hey if the individual mandate falls at the national level how long can it stand on a state basis. If SCOTUS can't kill Obamacare without killing Romneycare, too. Or can it?
Try JacksCare - Lower the MediCare eligible age to 50 immediately. This makes older workers MORE attractive to corporations since they don't have to provide them a health benefit. Increase withholding from 2.5% to 3.5% to cover the bulge. Lower Medicare eligible age by 5 years every four years...Bend the cost curve slowly and react to issues wisely. Private insurance is STILL available for those who want it but anyone who is MediCare eligible won't need it. In 40 years, everybody is covered.
there are more than 2 sides
If the President was "successful" in moving his party and the Republicans weren't, it's only a continuation of 30 years of the Republican party being truly successful in moving the Overton Window ever rightward.
Amen David - also, I would like to see the States rise up to pass a constitutional amendment putting term limits on congress.
The reason Ryan says he doesn't know who will bear the burden of his tax reform plan is that he knows it is the middle class and if he says that out loud it will kill all chance of its adoption (unless Republicans can disenfranchise enough voters through their undemocratic voter ID laws).
Brian is wrong. The home mortgage deduction is limited. You may not deduct interest on more than $1,000,000 of home acquisition debt for your main home and secondary residence. Since the average cost of an apartment in Manhattan is over $1,000,000 even that high limit can hit people who are middle class by New York standards.
Mat Bai said it. Politics trumps Congress acting in the interest of the country.
WHEN are people going to GET that STATES CAN do some things that the FEDERAL government CAN'T?
Obamacare is like Romneycare - NO, IT'S NOT (constitutionally speaking). The Massachusetts law is a STATE law, the law under review in the Supreme Court is FEDERAL law. The question is whether congress has exceeded their ENUMERATED powers.
Please familiarize yourselves with the 10th amendment:(from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As a liberal I say Woo-Hoo. Not for political reasons, (which are the only reasons the admin pushed this Heritage Foundations creation),
but because this bill is an insurance company bail-out. It strengthens the elements in our system that are destroying it: for profit parisitic insurance companies.
how bad can things go if the law is struck down, when Romney offered basically the same thing? It just tells electors that even republicans wanted it until Obama offered it, and that therefore a lot of people want it on both sides once they look past the politics, and electing Obama again might increase our chances of getting something else quite similar?
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.