Re: treatments were not “cost effective”
- From: CigarBaron <garbaron67j@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:04:40 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 27, 5:34 pm, Carbon <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:21:09 -0600, Mickey wrote:
Marc, I honestly think you'd be surprised, shocked and horrified by
how far the practice of medicine would sink, even in the US, if
Obamacare is allowed to proceed full volume. It may be another
generation before it really kicks in, but with the lack of physicians,
lack of facilities, both caused by the lack of incentive, we are
looking at the potential for a real horror story.
How can you be so sure Democrats would be against Tort reform? The
current system harms everyone except the lawyers.
They always have been. 99% of tort lawyers are democrat. 10% of the
malpractice "winnings" go into their Pacs. The record is clear: if
legislation increases litigation it's a democratic initiative. If it's
"anti-physician" it's democrat.
CigarBaron
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: treatments were not “cost effective”
- From: Carbon
- Re: treatments were not “cost effective”
- References:
- Re: treatments were not ?cost effective?
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: treatments were not “cost effective”
- From: CigarBaron
- Re: treatments were not ?cost effective?
- From: Carbon
- Re: treatments were not ?cost effective?
- Prev by Date: Re: treatments were not “cost effective”
- Next by Date: Re: Those crazy dems!
- Previous by thread: Re: treatments were not "cost effective"
- Next by thread: Re: treatments were not “cost effective”
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|