PDA

View Full Version : General Politics ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan


mlyonsd
08-27-2009, 02:15 PM
ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June hosted at the White House

By Joshua Rhett Miller
FOXNews.com
Thursday, August 27, 2009

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

The 33-second ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEHl_RhpMh8) by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.

"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters (http://leagueofamericanvoters.com/index.html), a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan."

"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."

NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions.

"We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed."

Adams objects to ABC's assertion that his group's position is partisan.

"It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said. "Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."

Dick Morris, a FOX News political analyst and the League of American Voters' chief strategist, conceptualized the advertisement and said its purpose was to "refocus" the debate on health care reform.

"I feel the whole debate on health care reform needed to be refocused on the issue of Medicare," he told FOXNews.com. "Most of the debate had been on issues of socialized medicine and cost. I felt that the impact of the legislation in cutting the Medicare program and enforcing rationing needed to be addressed."

Morris, a onetime advisor to former President Bill Clinton, said he was particularly troubled by ABC's decision not to air the spot.

"It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/27/abc-nbc-refuse-air-advertisement-critical-obamas-health-care-plan/

Liberal media trying their darndest to stifle the debate. Awesome.

2bikemike
08-27-2009, 02:22 PM
And yet people still refuse to believe there is a media bias that leans heavy to the Dems.

Reaper16
08-27-2009, 02:23 PM
If networks can air a half-hour block of Obama advertising then they can air this.

Donger
08-27-2009, 02:24 PM
That's amazingly blatant.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:25 PM
I don't see ABC running anti- or pro-abortion ads.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:27 PM
If networks can air a half-hour block of Obama advertising then they can air this.

I'd argue that a town forum by Obama could be followed by a rebuttle forum by McCain or similar.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 02:27 PM
Shocking and game breaker

CNN refuses to run ad critical of insurance industry

CNN Refusing To Run Health Care Ad Critical Of Insurance Industry (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/cnn-refusing-to-run-ad-critical-of-insurance-industry/)

8-5-2009

What on earth is going on at CNN?


The network — already taking criticism for declining to run (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/cnn-privately-pressed-cable-operators-not-to-run-ad-attacking-lou-dobbs/) an ad criticizing Lou Dobbs — is now refusing to run an ad nationally criticizing the insurance industry, the group that tried to place the ad tells me.

CNN’s reason: The ad “unnecessarily” singles out a top insurance industry executive by name for criticism.

The labor-backed Americans United for Change, a top White House ally in the health care wars, tried to book time on CNN and MSNBC for the ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULKJiRv-Lnk), which hits the insurance industry for wanting to preserve the status quo and levels harsh criticism at insurance giant Cigna’s CEO, Ed Hanway.

“Why do insurance companies and Republicans want to kill health insurance reform? Because they like things the way they are now,” the ad says, and then slams Hanway’s annual salary of over $12 million and golden parachute retirement package of over $70 million.

Americans United for Change’s spokesman, Jeremy Funk, tells me that CNN refused to run the ad nationally. He says CNN emailed the following reason for rejection:“This ad does not comply with our clearance guidelines because it unnecessarily singles out an individual company and person.”
That very well may be CNN’s policy. But AUC maintains that the mention of Cigna’s CEO was necessary to dramatize the enormous stake the insurance industry has in the health care wars. What’s more, AUC argues, the industry is made up of companies that are run by individuals deciding how to spend huge money to impact the health care debate — so why are they off limits?

“The bottom line question is: Would CNN run ads from Cigna that are positive about the company?” Funk asks. “If yes, why would they turn down an ad critical of the company for their role in trying to kill health insurance reform?”

By contrast, the ad will air nationally on MSNBC tomorrow.

2bikemike
08-27-2009, 02:27 PM
I don't see ABC running anti- or pro-abortion ads.

So they aren't running either side of that debate. Whats your point?

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:32 PM
"...without any new doctors..."

That's the key right there. They are lying to scare seniors.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159625.php

... the America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200).

...

The bill would ramp up programs to train more doctors, nurses and other health professionals to improve quality of care for all patients and refocus efforts on improving prevention and wellness efforts.

Donger
08-27-2009, 02:33 PM
"...without any new doctors..."

That's the key right there. They are lying to scare seniors.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159625.php

... the America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200).

...

The bill would ramp up programs to train more doctors, nurses and other health professionals to improve quality of care for all patients and refocus efforts on improving prevention and wellness efforts.

So, does this ramping up begin before people are covered and begin seeing doctors or after? If after, they aren't lying.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:34 PM
So they aren't running either side of that debate. Whats your point?

Networks decline to run ads on both sides of these sorts of issues.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:34 PM
So, does this ramping up begin before people are covered and begin seeing doctors or after? If after, they aren't lying.

The advertisers have no idea because there isn't a bill.

Donger
08-27-2009, 02:36 PM
The advertisers have no idea because there isn't a bill.

Huh?

"America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200).

...

The bill would ramp up programs..."

Are they not referencing HR 3200?

2bikemike
08-27-2009, 02:37 PM
Networks decline to run ads on both sides of these sorts of issues.

But they are choosing to run the chosen ones side and not the other. So you only get one side of the argument. I suppose that Fair and Balanced?

thecoffeeguy
08-27-2009, 02:38 PM
Keeping the truth from the people. How nice...

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 02:38 PM
But they are choosing to run the chosen ones side and not the other. So you only get one side of the argument. I suppose that Fair and Balanced?

That is not right. I just posted a story that CNN refused to run a negative ad on the insurance industry and republicans about health care.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:45 PM
Huh?

"America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200).

...

The bill would ramp up programs..."

Are they not referencing HR 3200?

There are multiple versions of bills to be negotiated into a final bill.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:45 PM
Huh?

"America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200).

...

The bill would ramp up programs..."

Are they not referencing HR 3200?

And "they" reference 'Obama's Plan'.

Donger
08-27-2009, 02:47 PM
There are multiple versions of bills to be negotiated into a final bill.

And do any of them bring new doctors on-board at the same time as people get coverage, or do they "ramp" up the doctor-making machine, too?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 02:51 PM
If networks can air a half-hour block of Obama advertising then they can air this.

Damn right they can
Posted via Mobile Device

petegz28
08-27-2009, 02:54 PM
seems channels are running the AARP ad supporting Obama
Posted via Mobile Device

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:57 PM
seems channels are running the AARP ad supporting Obama
Posted via Mobile Device

AARP's ads (and entire campaign) is non-partisan. That doesn't mean they aren't supporting one party's policy, but they are doing it in an non-partisan way (no mention of dems, hybrid donkey-elephant logo, 'divided we fail' slogan).

This one attacks Obama by name.

You might not agree with the distinction, but that's clearly entirely different.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 02:59 PM
And do any of them bring new doctors on-board at the same time as people get coverage, or do they "ramp" up the doctor-making machine, too?

I have no idea, but as I understand it the insurance programs aren't likely to start for several years and will ramp up coverage.

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 02:59 PM
How do 50 million people get health care from the same amount of doctors that are currently inpractise ?

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:00 PM
I have no idea, but as I understand it the insurance programs aren't likely to start for several years and will ramp up coverage.

You have no idea, but the ad is a lie? Scaring old people?

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:02 PM
How do 50 million people get health care from the same amount of doctors that are currently inpractise ?

Idealistic young people will flock to the ramp up, of course. What young person doesn't aspire to be a government doctor?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 03:02 PM
You have no idea, but the ad is a lie? Scaring old people?
LMAO
Posted via Mobile Device

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:04 PM
You have no idea, but the ad is a lie? Scaring old people?

Yes, it's a lie. And designed to scare old people.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:04 PM
How do 50 million people get health care from the same amount of doctors that are currently inpractise ?

ER rooms. Oh wait, that's now.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:05 PM
...a government doctor?
That's a similar sort of lie. You learn well.

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:06 PM
Yes, it's a lie. And designed to scare old people.

jAZ, you just said that you don't know. Therefore, how can you be sure that there won't be a shortage of doctors to care for all these new patients?

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 03:06 PM
Yes, it's a lie. And designed to scare old people.

HOW ?

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:06 PM
That's a similar sort of lie. You learn well.

Yes, you're a darn good teacher.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:06 PM
jAZ, you just said that you don't know. Therefore, how can you be sure that there won't be a shortage of doctors to care for all these new patients?

The ad says "without any new doctors". That's a lie.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:07 PM
HOW ?

"without any new doctors" is a lie.

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:08 PM
The ad says "without any new doctors". That's a lie.

Well, are there going to be new doctors when these millions of new patients flood the doctor's offices or not?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 03:09 PM
HOW ?

wasting your breath...jAZ is Dem first, reality second
Posted via Mobile Device

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:11 PM
Well, are there going to be new doctors when these millions of new patients flood the doctor's offices or not?

That's a fair question to ask, maybe even in an ad.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:11 PM
Well, are there going to be new doctors when these millions of new patients flood the doctor's offices or not?

Yeah they graduate hundreds or thousands from Med Schools every year

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 03:14 PM
Yeah they graduate hundreds or thousands from Med Schools every year

That didn't happen in the past, so the plan has added more doctors. Also, existing doctors will no longer be retiring.

mikey23545
08-27-2009, 03:17 PM
AARP's ads (and entire campaign) is non-partisan. <b> That doesn't mean they aren't supporting one party's policy, but they are doing it in an non-partisan way </b>(no mention of dems, hybrid donkey-elephant logo, 'divided we fail' slogan).


How far are you willing to bend and spin the truth for your Messiah? When do you finally start to feel an icy dread?

When the hell do you finally say, even if only inside your own head, "This just isn't right!"...

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:19 PM
Yeah they graduate hundreds or thousands from Med Schools every year

Hmmm. Let's say it's 5,000

50,000,000 / 5,000 = 10,000 patients to every new doctor.

10,000 / 365 days = ~27 patients per day.

Yeah, sign me up for that.

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 03:19 PM
"without any new doctors" is a lie.




How many new doctors will we need to cover 50 million new patients ?
Do you know the answer to that ?

Does Congress know the answer to that ?

Does Obama know the answer to that ?

We do know that Obama estimates on the deficit and the debt were waaaay off don't we.

What makes any one believe that Obama or congress knows how many doctors we'll need.

What makes anyone believe they know how the 50 million new patients
will be helped with medical services and professional medical advice ?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:20 PM
That didn't happen in the past, so the plan has added more doctors. Also, existing doctors will no longer be retiring.

I was being sarcastic

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 03:22 PM
Hmmm. Let's say it's 5,000

50,000,000 / 5,000 = 10,000 patients to every new doctor.

10,000 / 365 days = ~27 patients per day.

Yeah, sign me up for that.




The critically ill will be offered the simple solution...Do you prefer the Blue Pill or Red pill.

The Pregnant ladies will have to give birth in the hallways of hospitals if they're lucky.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:23 PM
Hmmm. Let's say it's 5,000

50,000,000 / 5,000 = 10,000 patients to every new doctor.

10,000 / 365 days = ~27 patients per day.

Yeah, sign me up for that.

Seriously that is not bad?

Where I work the doctors see patients every 15 minutes. That comes to 28 patients if my math is correct for an 8 hr day + lunch. So they do that already.

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:25 PM
That's a similar sort of lie. You learn well.

Then again: Section 225 discusses payments for physicians who choose to accept the public option insurance

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

KC Dan
08-27-2009, 03:25 PM
If networks can air a half-hour block of Obama advertising then they can air this.Yet they won't, don't and justify it with hypocritical reasoning. And, their shrill supporters (see jAZ) help them justify it and claim middle ground. Whatever, people understand what is really happening, thus see the Congressional and Presidential poll ratings.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:25 PM
Donger you need to tweak that for a 5 day work week and see what it is

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:26 PM
Donger you need to tweak that for a 5 day work week and see what it is

I'm no math genius, but I'm guessing the number of patients per day is going to go up.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:27 PM
How far are you willing to bend and spin the truth for your Messiah? When do you finally start to feel an icy dread?

When the hell do you finally say, even if only inside your own head, "This just isn't right!"...

Like I said, I'm explaining to you the distinction between the two. You might not like the policy. That's your deal. Don't pretend the differences don't exist.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:27 PM
I'm no math genius, but I'm guessing the number of patients per day is going to go up.

LMAO Well duh

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:28 PM
LMAO Well duh

10,000 / 260 = ~38 patients per day

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:28 PM
How many new doctors will we need to cover 50 million new patients ?
Do you know the answer to that ?

Does Congress know the answer to that ?

Does Obama know the answer to that ?

We do know that Obama estimates on the deficit and the debt were waaaay off don't we.

What makes any one believe that Obama or congress knows how many doctors we'll need.

What makes anyone believe they know how the 50 million new patients
will be helped with medical services and professional medical advice ?
It's a fair question that has a complex answer that I don't have the information to answer. But it's NOT 'without any new doctors'. That's a lie.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:28 PM
Jesus do I have to do everything :D

There is about 260 working days in a year so that would be 38.4615 patients per day

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:29 PM
LMAO Damn you Donger

FishingRod
08-27-2009, 03:30 PM
"The advertisers have no idea because there isn't a bill."

"There are multiple versions of bills to be negotiated into a final bill."

"Yes, it's a lie. And designed to scare old people."


As you have pointed out there is no final single bill so they don't know what is or what is not going to be included. So by your own definition, wouldn't the advertisement in favor of the health care reform be a lie to try and calm the fears of old people?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:33 PM
They could do it if they can see a new patient every 10 minutes = 6\hr x 7 = 42 (with room to spare)

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:34 PM
It's a fair question that has a complex answer that I don't have the information to answer. But it's NOT 'without any new doctors'. That's a lie.

Well, where in HR 3200 does it list how they plan on adding to the standard crop of annual new doctors? You seem to be in agreement that more doctors will be needed, so how is that going to be accomplished?

Also, doesn't becoming a doctor take about ten years?

Dave Lane
08-27-2009, 03:36 PM
I don't see ABC running anti- or pro-abortion ads.

Or Faux running anti gun / pro abortion ads either...

Oh and the article was by????

:)

King_Chief_Fan
08-27-2009, 03:37 PM
Networks decline to run ads on both sides of these sorts of issues.

but in this case, it is o.k to go pro health care bill giving the Pres air time and o.k. not to grant that same air time to any oppostion....even when the opposition is paying for it?

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:37 PM
As you have pointed out there is no final single bill so they don't know what is or what is not going to be included. So by your own definition, wouldn't the advertisement in favor of the health care reform be a lie to try and calm the fears of old people?

Depends on what's said, potentially.

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:40 PM
"The advertisers have no idea because there isn't a bill."

"There are multiple versions of bills to be negotiated into a final bill."

"Yes, it's a lie. And designed to scare old people."


As you have pointed out there is no final single bill so they don't know what is or what is not going to be included. So by your own definition, wouldn't the advertisement in favor of the health care reform be a lie to try and calm the fears of old people?

Some lies are okay.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:42 PM
Donger have you read this article on the shortage of doctors? This is one area where people who don't want reform have a valid point. Right now there is already a shortage of doctors so by adding more patients we are going to have to find some more plus pay them better and probably pay for their schooling as well.

This article says The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional doctors each year.

But that is only to cover the shortages we have now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html

BucEyedPea
08-27-2009, 03:46 PM
Donger have you read this article on the shortage of doctors? This is one area where people who don't want reform have a valid point. Right now there is already a shortage of doctors so by adding more patients we are going to have to find some more plus pay them better and probably pay for their schooling as well.
So you add even more taxes and more central planning. Shame on you beef dirky!

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:46 PM
Donger have you read this article on the shortage of doctors? This is one area where people who don't want reform have a valid point. Right now there is already a shortage of doctors so by adding more patients we are going to have to find some more plus pay them better and probably pay for their schooling as well.

This article says The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional doctors each year.

But that is only to cover the shortages we have now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html

Thanks for the article, dirk. I'm sure that more kids will sign up to be doctors once they realize that they will be paid by the government (under a public option).

KC Dan
08-27-2009, 03:49 PM
Thanks for the article, dirk. I'm sure that more kids will sign up to be doctors once they realize that they will be paid by the government (under a public option).Oh, and they will be paid at a lower rate that will hardly if ever increase.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 03:49 PM
So you add even more taxes and more central planning. Shame on you beef dirky!

beef dirky LMAO

Thanks for the article, dirk. I'm sure that more kids will sign up to be doctors once they realize that they will be paid by the government (under a public option).

I don't know about being paid by the government but as the article suggested they probably need to up the rates

Donger
08-27-2009, 03:51 PM
beef dirky LMAO



I don't know about being paid by the government but as the article suggested they probably need to up the rates

See post #47. Or, I'll just post it again. Section 225 of HR 3200:

Then again: Section 225 discusses payments for physicians who choose to accept the public option insurance

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 03:58 PM
'm sure that more kids will sign up to be doctors once they realize that they will be paid by the government (under a public option).

You do realize that they have something like 3x as many applicants for Med School as admissions. Right?

Taco John
08-27-2009, 03:59 PM
I'd argue that a town forum by Obama could be followed by a rebuttle forum by McCain or similar.



Hahaha! You want to regulate the response?

jAZ
08-27-2009, 04:00 PM
Hahaha! You want to regulate the response?

No, I'm responding to a post.

FishingRod
08-27-2009, 04:00 PM
Depends on what's said, potentially.



I only saw it once but it basically said that all of the concerns ( I am paraphrasing) that have been mentioned by the opposition were baseless and that every thing would be fine. Everyone would be covered it would cost less money and we will all get a free lollypop too. Maybe I didn't pay that much attention but It very much reminded me of having the balance and integrity of (pick your least favorite congressional candidate) smear add against the other guy.

I find the argument that one shouldn't object to parts of the various proposals that they find objectionable because the final however many thousand page draft isn't finished to be a very politician like dodge. If the unwashed masses wait until after a bill makes it to its final version ( one they most likely won't get a chance to read) then it like so many other bags of excrement will be shoved through with little chance of turning it back. Once an "entitlement" program is put into motion it will have to be continued and funded because it people will become dependent on it. If most other countries they have a socialized health system and in looking at the overall health of their population they are for the most part in better shape that the United States as a whole. I understand that and can see its value. The problem in my mind is two fold. First this opens up ever aspect of our personal lives to Government interference. Anything that can affect one of our citizens heath can logically be controlled by the government for the better good of our society. Smoking, drinking, Fatty foods, Snow Skiing, automobile ownership, Gun ownership the list is endless. The second item is cost. Anyone that doesn't think covering everyone isn't going to cost more money is not the sharpest tool in the box or just being intellectually dishonest. The British produce a much greater percentage of their oil needs than the United States yet their Gasoline costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $6-8$ a gallon at the pump. There is a connection.

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 04:01 PM
See post #47. Or, I'll just post it again. Section 225 of HR 3200:

Then again: Section 225 discusses payments for physicians who choose to accept the public option insurance

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.


Follow this up with the information on the IRS and all government EE's having access to our tax :cuss: records and returns.

Who's in favor of the IRS and the all gov't EE's having access to your tax records ?

Taco John
08-27-2009, 04:01 PM
No, I'm responding to a post.

Yeah, and your response indicated that you wanted to regulate the way that the Republicans responded to the Obama astroturf town hall.

Donger
08-27-2009, 04:02 PM
You do realize that they have something like 3x as many applicants for Med School as admissions. Right?

No, I didn't know that. Why are there so many rejections?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 04:04 PM
You do realize that they have something like 3x as many applicants for Med School as admissions. Right?

My best friend wanted to be a doctor and he was pretty smart but he couldn't get in. So now he works for Monsanto to fuck everyone up. :D

jAZ
08-27-2009, 04:12 PM
No, I didn't know that. Why are there so many rejections?

Capactiy.

As it was explained to me recently by the Dean of an Engineering College who's closely afiliated with the Med School... there is a national association that self regulates Med Schools and handles the national admission process. And they throttle the admissions levels and certifications of schools in part to keep to keep it an elite occupation.

He compared it to Engineering which is an effectively unregulated degree.

Donger
08-27-2009, 04:15 PM
Capactiy.

As it was explained to me recently by the Dean of an Engineering College who's closely afiliated with the Med School... there is a national association that self regulates Med Schools and handles the national admission process. And they throttle the admissions levels to keep to keep it an elite occupation.

He compared it to Engineering which is an effectively unregulated degree.

I don't follow you. Are you saying that there is spare capacity at the medical schools? That they could handle more students now? There's a bunch of empty seats?

And, if you wouldn't mind, what is the name of this national association that handles the national admission process?

bluehawkdoc
08-27-2009, 04:19 PM
Great minds, as I have said before, will find other fields where they can enjoy higher salaries and more autonomy.

memyselfI
08-27-2009, 04:21 PM
There is a golden opportunity for a network to prove they are not part of Minitrue or Propdep and not censor ads they deem critical of the WH. Fox can't do it. I wonder if CBS will step up to the plate.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 04:22 PM
I don't follow you. Are you saying that there is spare capacity at the medical schools? That they could handle more students now? There's a bunch of empty seats?

And, if you wouldn't mind, what is the name of this national association that handles the national admission process?

The American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS)

http://www.aamc.org/students/amcas/start.htm

And sort of. There is both demand and ability to add programs. And demand for doctors and nurses. There is a cap of about 15,000 students per year.

Donger
08-27-2009, 04:25 PM
The American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS)

http://www.aamc.org/students/amcas/start.htm

And sort of. There is both demand and ability to add programs. And demand for doctors and nurses. There is a cap of about 15,000 students per year.

Thanks. Do you not think that doctors should be elite? I mean, would you rather be operated on by some surgeon who graduated from Harvard or Grenada?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 04:28 PM
No, I didn't know that. Why are there so many rejections?

Ironically enough I talked to my best friend a couple of weeks ago and we were discussing this and his attempt to get in.

First you have to take the MCAT which is an extremely tough test. He was a 3.9-4.0 student and ended up having to take it twice because it was so hard. He said he didn't score that great the second time.

Second there is or was limited availability so the schools take the best and brightest. It also helps to know someone because sometimes it is not what you know but who you know. Which is ok because that happens when getting jobs as well.

Overall it is just a fairly rigorous process and I understand it somewhat but I have no doubt he would have been a good doctor so they probably could expand the selection somewhat.

Donger
08-27-2009, 04:30 PM
Ironically enough I talked to my best friend a couple of weeks ago and we were discussing this and his attempt to get in.

First you have to take the MCAT which is an extremely tough test. He was a 3.9-4.0 student and ended up having to take it twice because it was so hard. He said he didn't score that great the second time.

Second there is or was limited availability so the schools take the best and brightest. It also helps to know someone because sometimes it is not what you know but who you know. Which is ok because that happens when getting jobs as well.

Overall it is just a fairly rigorous process and I understand it somewhat but I have no doubt he would have been a good doctor so they probably could expand the selection somewhat.

Hmmm. Sounds like the quality of the doctors would decrease. It sounds like the cream of the crop gets accepted now.

***SPRAYER
08-27-2009, 04:33 PM
The American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS)

http://www.aamc.org/students/amcas/start.htm

And sort of. There is both demand and ability to add programs. And demand for doctors and nurses. There is a cap of about 15,000 students per year.

I wish there was a cap on lawyers and not doctors. One can only fantasize the trajectory a scumbag like B.O. would have had to take in life if not for the system that we have now.

bluehawkdoc
08-27-2009, 04:36 PM
It is a rigorous process and that is just to get accepted. Then, 4 years med school and a minimum 3 yrs of residency (depending on the specialty). I was 33 yo before I made a decent living. Most have $150-200,000 of education debt once they are out. High GPA college grads are not going to continue to choose medicine so that they can make the physical, mental and financial sacrifices detailed above only to be a government employee, IMO.

KC Dan
08-27-2009, 04:39 PM
It is a rigorous process and that is just to get accepted. Then, 4 years med school and a minimum 3 yrs of residency (depending on the specialty). I was 33 yo before I made a decent living. Most have $150-200,000 of education debt once they are out. High GPA college grads are not going to continue to choose medicine so that they can make the physical, mental and financial sacrifices detailed above only to be a government employee, IMO.And, why would they unless every other industry has been destroyed by gov't?

jAZ
08-27-2009, 04:39 PM
Thanks. Do you not think that doctors should be elite? I mean, would you rather be operated on by some surgeon who graduated from Harvard or Grenada?

First, I'll note that you appear to have taken the side of regulated autocratic decision making over market driven free choice. That's funny.

Second, I don't know enough to advcoate one thing or another. I'm explaining someone else's opinion.

Third, elite in this case means rare not necessary limited to only those qualified. Which is to say, there might be another 10,000 students who are rejected from Med School who are similarly qualified as the last 10,000 that were admitted. Or at least sufficiently qualified to make for a good doctor.

His point (and I see his merit) is that if you open up the admissions process and certification process and remove the artificial throttle, it will create more students.

I'd still want some process that maintains a minimum standards for practice (exams, etc).

Part of that, I assume, is a residency program that itself has natural restrictions because you aren't just treating patients, you are educating students.

Like I said, it's complicated.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 04:40 PM
Hmmm. Sounds like the quality of the doctors would decrease. It sounds like the cream of the crop gets accepted now.

Like I said, "cream of the crop" is relative.

The top 100 students are the cream of the crop. But they take the top 15,000.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 04:44 PM
...only to be a government employee, IMO.

Again, the program doesn't employ doctors.

Donger
08-27-2009, 04:46 PM
Again, the program doesn't employ doctors.

HR 3200 Section 225. It just pays them.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 04:52 PM
HR 3200 Section 225. It just pays them.

Doctors can't choose to take only cash or private insurance?

Donger
08-27-2009, 04:53 PM
Doctors can't choose to take only cash or private insurance?

Might I suggest you read the bill?

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

2bikemike
08-27-2009, 08:30 PM
So if I understand it they are throttling back the admissions of Doctors in training and yet were already about 5,000 Doctors short?

jAZ
08-28-2009, 12:02 AM
Might I suggest you read the bill?

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

You don't know the answer? Or don't like giving the answer?

jAZ
08-28-2009, 12:03 AM
So if I understand it they are throttling back the admissions of Doctors in training and yet were already about 5,000 Doctors short?

As I understand it, they've *always* throttled back the admissions. Though recently it's become a problem so they've moved to expand them some (10% I think).

Donger
08-28-2009, 05:03 AM
You don't know the answer? Or don't like giving the answer?

I know the answer. Now you do:

(c) Payment Terms for Providers

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

Inspector
08-28-2009, 10:45 AM
Seriously that is not bad?

Where I work the doctors see patients every 15 minutes. That comes to 28 patients if my math is correct for an 8 hr day + lunch. So they do that already.

They never take days off? Or vacations?

Pretty dedicated bunch I have to say!!!

Inspector
08-28-2009, 10:48 AM
Donger you need to tweak that for a 5 day work week and see what it is

Ah....I see.

That makes more sense.

Inspector
08-28-2009, 10:52 AM
My best friend wanted to be a doctor and he was pretty smart but he couldn't get in. So now he works for Monsanto to **** everyone up. :D

He could probably go to doctor school in Mexico.