nvdaily.com link to home page

Traffic | Weather | Mobile Edition
Archives | Subscribe

Opinion arrow Letters to the Editor

| 0 | 44 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Opinions on Obamacare, the jail, July 4


I have heard so many negative things about Obamacare. I hope this offends no one, but if it makes the insurance premiums cheaper for people with pre-existing conditions, know what I say? Bring it on! If not this, what do you readers prescribe?

Another subject I want to comment on is the regional jail. I feel the protesters should accept the fact it is going to be built, and put their energies elsewhere. I do, however, think it was wrong for them to try to be "barred" from speaking, no pun intended.

I have a fantastic idea! I propose that the Fourth of July be celebrated permanently on a Monday. I realize to literally have the Fourth on a Monday would be impossible, because it falls on different days of the week. However, we could call it Independence Day, and celebrate it on the first Monday of July. This is the way a lot of the holidays are celebrated. This way, for those people who like to travel, they could have another three-day weekend, like Memorial Day and Labor Day. I am so surprised no one has brought this idea to people's attention.

In closing, I would like to say that when I become the first Shenandoah County resident to become president of these great 50 states and get my Diet Soda Party movement established, this will be one of my first pieces of legislation signed into law.

God bless America!

Gary Stephens, Fort Valley


Prior to H.R. 3200, the U.S. was the lone developed nation without universal health care; the other thirty-two nations had it in place, some dating back to 1912, 1938, etc. Sad for our country that the Republicans have fought and still fighting this important legislation with such antagonism. One example of the Party today: Freedom Works is a conservative non-profit organization, active with the Tea Party, based in WDC which runs boot camps for supporters of Republican candidates, training volunteers, assisting in campaigns, and encouraging them to mobilize, interacting with both fellow citizens and their political representatives. Among their required reading for new members is a book by Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. Posted on their website from Rules for Radicals is....

The rules:

1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the expertise of your enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the threat itself.’
10. If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
11. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
12. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

Anytime you have to pass a bill to "see what is in it", it is a BAD bill. There are some good ideas they are just implemented horribly. Repeal and replace.

The CBO has already amended the cost and they didn't go down! Obamacare (ACA) is not just a huge tax hike. It’s also a major new spending entitlement that’s already pegged at $2.5 trillion and will increase the federal debt burden much faster than the GDP expands.

ACA is also bad for job creators and workers. Obama has already admitted that "No, you probably can't keep your current medical plan." When he specifically lobbied that you could.

They have lied about what is in it. The have lied about what it will do.

Forbes, June 2012: Will Obamacare Kill Jobs? A New Study Says No

One of the key arguments made by opponents to the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, is that it will kill jobs....The nonpartisan Urban Institute decided to find out....It found no evidence whatever that health care reform, and mandated coverage, killed jobs.



The exaggerated Republican claim that the new health care law “kills jobs” was high on our list of the “Whoppers of 2011.” But the facts haven’t stopped Republicans and their allies from making the “job-killing” claim a major theme of their campaign 2012 TV ads:

Five ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attack Democrats by repeating the “Obamacare will kill jobs” ...

"The CBO has already amended the cost and they didn't go down!" WHAT?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will reduce yearly deficits — by $119 billion over the 2012-2019 period — not add to them. Earlier this month at a debate in New Hampshire, Romney phrased this claim differently, saying that repealing the health care law would save “$95 billion a year.” That figure is the amount of new spending required by the law, but Romney didn’t factor in spending cuts and revenue provisions that, according to CBO, would more than cover the cost of the legislation.

This time, Romney took his claim a step further, wrongly saying that the law would increase the debt, not just spending. In fact, the CBO has said that the deficit would increase if the health care law was repealed, as Romney proposes.

Factcheck, January 24, 2012

Well done, Jane Mackie. Thanks for your responses that have totally discredited poster "Robert" and his blind repetition of Republican distortions of the Affordable Care Act's features and benefits that improve the lives of everyday people.

Thank you Robert for your comments. Sometimes the comments section needs a Conservative "rush". Everyones comments are welcome. ENOUGH SAID.

Jane you can't overcome ignorance with facts.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” Ben Franklin

Certainly, sjf, all have a right to their comments, all have a right to their opinions-----but people do not have a right to their own "facts". Robert can express his opinion but not his own "facts". Jane Mackie and others have done an excellent job of pointing this out with not only the correct facts, but the nonpartisan source of these facts.

I am pleased when posters prepare a fact filled comment supported by easily verified independent non-partisan third party sources. Irrefutable facts makes the Tea Party Tin Foil Hat Ron Paul Marching Band go crazy. I claim to have that same fact-finding ability, but I do not have the motivation, especially when Mackie is on duty.

Hard core evangelical fundamentalists masquerading as Lyndon LaRouche Tea Party Conservatives are comfortable repeating the prepared propaganda, lies, and distortions from GOP Headquarters that champion the conservative position, but that is where their enthusiasm for argument ends. Without Rush Limbaugh lurking over their shoulder whispering in their ears, or Glen Beck loading their lips with what to say and how to say it, the conservative viewpoint as spoken by our local Tea Party spokespeople quickly runs out of ammunition once they have cut, copied, and pasted the opening salvo.

Ensuing responses leave conservatives looking and sounding like dumb struck fools. When confronted by a situation that calls for off-the-cuff-thinking-on-your-feet reactions to recite factual comments supporting the propaganda they wholeheartedly claim to endorse they resemble... no, I am mistaken... they literally become the proverbial deer frozen in the headlights. I am reduced to rolling on the floor, laughing my a** off every time one of these ultra far right conservatives opens their mouths to once again enjoy the taste of shoe leather. Can any be more ineffective than "sjf" or "spanky" or "spunky" or "sneezie" or "fire eater" or "sleepy" or "dopey" or "grumpy" ?

In honor of Saul Alinsky's rule number 5, I offer the following comment for your consideration: The more that come to this current debate, the worse they get, and "sjf" is the last one to arrive..... (in my not-so-humble opinion)?

My best unsolicited advice to our lovable Tea Party whackos: "If you are sick of being made out to be some stupid, Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh follower, then stop repeating their words as your own gospel".



Franklin was right, Ranbo44...One I particularly like....

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. ~ Mark Twain

There should be an effort to disfranchise Voters who only get their information from FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You know the same effort now being undertaken by the Republicans to deny voter privileges to people who can't produce "proper" identification. Btw, that along with another reason led to their holding Eric Holder in contempt. He was going after this travesty. He was the first cabinet member to ever be held in contempt. We all know the second reason they went after him.

"Potential discretionary costs under PPACA arise from the effects of the legislation on a
variety of federal programs and agencies. The law establishes a number of new programs
and activities, as well as authorizing new funding for existing programs. By their nature,
however, all such potential effects on discretionary spending are subject to future
appropriation actions, which could result in greater or smaller costs than the sums
authorized by the legislation. Moreover, in many cases, the law authorizes future
appropriations but does not specify a particular amount."
"Table 2 presents a list of new activities for which PPACA includes only a broad
authorization for the appropriation of “such sums as may be necessary.” For those
activities, the lack of guidance in the legislation about how new activities should be
conducted means that, in many cases, CBO does not have a sufficient basis for estimating
what the “necessary” amounts might be over the 2010-2020 period."
These are quotes from a CBO letter to Congressman Jerry Lewis. How do we know what the costs are going to be? They are subject to future appropriation actions or best guesses because of lack of guidance in the legislation.

Quoting the CBO letter to Rep Lewis. I read "By their nature, however, all such potential effects on discretionary spending are subject to future appropriation actions, which could result IN GREATER OR SMALLER COSTS than the sums authorized by the legislation."

I do not wish to insult any one's intelligence regarding budgeted matters of which I know so little; however, on a Bill of this magnitude it would be great to have a guarantee of the future positive effects but that is impossible given the tentacles of such a long overdue undertaking, AND particulary given the Republican iron curtain. If you look at the history of the Social Security Act that was implemented in 1935, you will note the same concerns and debates; and, over the last 76 years, amendments have been passed to improve it as demanded by our changing world, e.g., average life expectancy in 1935 was 68; today it is 79. That 1935 decision has proven to serve this country well for many years. Does it have shortfalls, you bet it does! The biggest shortfall is human greed!

For example, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world, admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies. In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history (until 2012 when the British GlaxoSmithKline paid the USG $3 billion in fines). Sadly, fees or fines are the only punishment for these crooked conglomerates.


Jane, I would just like to applaud you for not just giving rhetoric but providing proof/facts to back up your commentary. Fighting against those that do not care enough to fact check the information they are telling others is not only an often thankless job, it takes an extreme dedication. Looking around this area we live in, I know facts will not matter to many. But I still applaud your effort, because if even one voter is better informed, you have succeeded. No matter which way one may lean.

This is precisely why you cannot factually state that the ACA will lower deficits. We do not know the costs and the government does not have a good track record of coming in near budget. In 1967 it was estimated that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending in 1990 was $110 billion – oops only off by 98 billion.

As to social security. We now take in less in noninterest revenues than expenditures. How long can that continue? Estimates are until 2033, that would have been 2036 but by Obama lowering the employees contribution he advanced the year of depletion.

What is the source(s) for all the figures you provided in your post? You did not mention them.

How interesting that this author brings in the regional jail in conjunction with Obama cares (NOT). Now we know who will be filling those jails...all those freeloaders (to quote Nancy Pelosi) who don't or can't buy health insurance and those of us "terrorists" (yeah, that's DOJ) who dare to speak against anything the government does. Yeah, people jail time for those who don't do what daddy government tells you. ...makes perfect sense now!
Love, The Queen of the Tin Foil Hats! mmm...mmm...mmm! :)

Love the baby chick on the right side of this site crying that "The sky is FALLING!" and the cartoon mid page crying "WOLF! WOLF!"

Anywhere between five and the next 12 years, Medicare as we know it will go bankrupt....U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., appearing on Meet the Press, 5-1-2011

Chicago Tribune July 2, 1969: The Medicare hospital trust fund faces bankruptcy by 1976 and taxes must either be raised or benefits reduced the senate finance committee was told today.

New York Times July 7, 1981: Medicare payroll taxes already imposed by Congress, including two increases scheduled for 1985 and 1986, will only be able to keep the hospital insurance system solvent for eight to 10 more years, three Cabinet officers informed Congress. Even under the Reagan Administration's highly optimistic economic projections, the fund will be bankrupt before 2000, the three said.

Washington Post,March 6, 1983: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici warned the nation's governors the other day, "Medicare can be bankrupt in 2 1/2 years," unless some way is found to put the brakes on its burgeoning costs.

Chicago Tribune February 6, 1985: Medicare is still expected to go bankrupt in 1991, and a new flood of red tape is not helping America's hospitals.

Washington Post, April 1, 1986: The Medicare hospital insurance program faces bankruptcy by 1996, two years earlier than projected last year.

Los Angeles Times May 31, 1995: For weeks, Republicans have been talking about a report that warns that Medicare is in danger of going bankrupt in the year 2002.

(Source: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/05/medicare-is-going-bankrupt-again.html )

Yes, it really does get tiresome hearing this over and over again. They just can’t get the cost estimates correct so they have to keep going back and asking for more money to keep the program running. The initial payroll tax for Medicare was .35% on the first $6,600 employee’s wages. The $6,600 upper wage limit rose by about 50% in total over the first 8 years and then dramatically increased after that, in 1994 the upper wage limit was eliminated. While the wage limit was being increased, the tax rate was increased continuously as well. It approximately tripled in the first 8 years from .035% to 1% and eventually hit the current level of 1.45% in 1986 or 2.9% combined with the employers contribution or if you’re self-employed. These increases far outpaced the rate of inflation. Now under PPACA the medicare payroll tax rate will go up again for individuals with incomes over $200,000. In addition, high-income households would also be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013. So how long will it be before we hear this is not enough and the rate increased for those in lower income brackets?


Jail time for not buying health insurance? Could you direct me to the section of the law containing that provision. Or should I just check with Rush?

Good news. We don’t have to pay. If you don’t buy insurance and don’t pay the penalty, mandate, tax – or whatever they want to call it – nothing will happen. I’m glad I learned this bit of information. They can send scary letters or threaten to withhold a refund but otherwise that’s it – no jail time.

“The law, however, severely limits the ability of the IRS to collect the penalties. There are no civil or criminal penalties for refusing to pay it and the IRS cannot seize bank accounts or dock wages to collect it. No interest accumulates for unpaid penalties.”


I'm still waiting for your source references to your earlier post, | July 12, 2012 6:55 AM . Do they not exist? Did you fabricate the figures to suit your argument?

Regarding your post| July 12, 2012 4:30 PM :

Why are you intermingling Social Security Administration figures from two separate categories, "employees" and "self-employed" to imply huge increases? The actual employee out of pocket increase over a period of nearly 50 years went from 3 and a half cents per hundred dollars of income ($0.035 per $100.00) to a dollar and forty-five cents ($1.45 per $100.00).

In the same period my income from wages went from eighty-five cents per hour($0.85/hour) to one hundred sixty thousand dollars a year ($160,000.00/year).

BTW, one of "I'mdebtfree"'s reference sources for his Social Security comment is a real estate mortgage broker working out of his home who comments on topics he wishes he understood better:

Kent Willard is an independent consultant specializing in mortgage risk management. His career began at RTC, and continued at Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Washington Mutual, Triad Guaranty, and most recently at Paulson & Co. Most of Kent’s career has been making mortgage credit models and credit policies.
As much as possible, Kent works out of his home in Winston-Salem, struggles at landscaping his yard, listens to chamber music, and opines on things he wishes he understood better.

All this is just talk because you won't have an MD to go to without a long wait . I know of many good doctors retiring early or choosing a different career just locally. it will become a 2tired system, if you have a lot of money,you can see a specialist because you can pay what the government won't. Why do you think the government is changing the recommendations for mammogram and for your PSA to be drawn?

As to sources: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
The link to KentWilliard was to show a chart from the Urban Institute regarding Medicare Expected Taxes & Benefits, apparently you choose to ignore that graph.

As to your wage increase from $0.85 to $160,000 a year. That is not quite an accurate comparison. First, minimum wage in 1965 was $1.25 and minimum wage now is NOT $76.00 an hour.

“Most of the ACA-related cost saving is attributable to a reduction in the annual payment updates for most Medicare services (other than physicians’ services and drugs) by total economy multifactor productivity growth, which the Trustees project will average 1.1 percent per year. The report notes that sustaining these payment reductions indefinitely will require unprecedented efficiency-enhancing innovations in health care payment and delivery systems that are by no means certain. In addition, the Trustees assume an almost 31-percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services will be implemented in 2013 as required by current law, which is also highly uncertain.”

THE FACTS: In its most recent complete estimate, in March 2011, the Congressional Budget Office said the new health care law would actually reduce the federal budget deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years. In the following decade, the law would continue to reduce deficits by about one-half of 1% of the nation's gross domestic product, the office said.

The congressional budget scorekeepers acknowledged their projections are "quite uncertain" because of the complexity of the issue and the assumptions involved, which include the assumption that all aspects of the law are implemented as written.

Realize this data is a little dated (2006); however, it is interesting that in England health care is 8.2% of their GDP; Canada, 10% of GDP; and the U.S. health care is 15.3% of GDP.

Per capita spending on health U.S. $6719, average life expectancy 78. UK, $2815, life expectancy 80. Canada $3673, life expectancy 81.


I think it is comical, but so hypocritical, to now see the right wing---who controls today's Republican Party----reaction to the recent decision of the Supreme Court that the Afforadable Care Act is indeed constitutional. As I'mdebtfree gleefully notes in his/her post, they (who I assume means the people who do not like the Affordable Care Act also called Obamacare) "do not have to buy the (mandated) health insurance and do not need to worry about being hit with the penalty" since "there are no civil or criminal penalities to not paying for it".

Wait a minute here-----is this conservative, right wing group the group who proudly claims they are the "law and order" bunch? You know, for them it is "ok to take away citizen's personal liberties in the fight against terrorism" and illegal immigrants have broken the law and need to be rounded up or "self-deportation" as Mr. Romney advocates.

Are they not the group who always points to the Constitution as their guide?

Are they not the group who waves our flag proudly; proudly call themselves patriotic Americans, and a few years ago called unpatriotic those of us who dared to question the "why" for the Bush/Cheney administration's war in Iraq-----for even questioning the lame reason for that war?

Oh yes, now I get it. The law and order and patriotic bit only applies for the laws and matters that the conservatives "like". It apparently does not apply to those laws of our country that they do not like.

Does that mean the rest of us don't have to follow any of the laws of this country that we do not like ?? Hmmmmmm! Is that the kind of country we all want?

"Concern", all you say is purely scare tactics. The same type of scare tactics were attempted when Social Security was passed in 1935 and when Medicare was passed in 1965.

The health care system, as costs continue to skyrocket and all of us are paying for the uninsured's health care, is not sustainable. Have you been to an Emergency Room lately? Even though ERs use triage in the allocation of patient care according to seriousness, those who need emergency care have unnecessarily long waits because of crowded ERs filled with many who do not have insurance because they use the ER as their "family doctor". This is seen especially in the more populated areas such as cities.

"Concern" says they know doctors who say that they will retire early or change careers? I heard the same thing during the 1980's when most doctor's malpractice insurance premiums skyrocketed because of greatly increased amount of lawsuits. Guess what---for all the many doctors who threatened this, very very few actually followed through. Again, scare tactics.

4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
Haven’t decided which rule you’re trying to follow.

“Tax? Penalty? Who cares what you call it. The important thing is, it would only have to be paid by the deadbeats, the freeloaders----those who by their irresponsible behavior are forcing those of us who are responsible to pick up their bill. To put it another way, be a reponsible citizen and follow the law---and yes, it has been declared constitutional---- and you will not have to pay it. So, what is wrong with that? You don't agree with this healthcare law? Does that mean I don't have to follow any of the laws of this country that I don't agree with?” Song98

Just saying – there’s nothing that’s going to make those “deadbeats, the freeloaders” step up and pay.

As for myself. I always pay all my taxes and pay for my health insurance, so sorry, this does not apply to me. Just those “deadbeats”

I work at a hospital and yes I know several MDs leaving the practice. One of our best Heart Surgeons has already started classes for a new career..What a loss! I have been in the medical field for 40 years and have NEVER seen anything like this. Don't talk to me about scare tactics until you have polled a few MDs yourself.

I'mdebtfree, I was trying to make the point that after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare" to some), I heard and read the talk of some conservatives including a couple of Republican lawmakers, urging people to not follow the law. True, I used sarcasm, but the hypocrisy from the right is so apparent the sarcasm just came out.

I have been very fortunate to have always had good jobs with good pay and good benefits including health insurance. Not everyone is that fortunate. There are many decent, hardworking people living right here in The Valley----yes, WORKING people----who are not able to get health insurance.

The "deadbeats" I refer to are those who will be given the opportunity to take responsibility for their health care and refuse to do so, breaking the law at the same time, because they do not "like" the Affordable Care Act law. Or, they don't "like" Obama. Or they don't "like" liberals. Or they don't "like" Democrats----you name it.

Right now, we have an unsustainable system with health care costs skyrocketing for a number of years, and we have all been paying for the uninsured for years. This health care law at least takes the step in the right direction to address these problems.

Concern, you and I could "poll" all the doctors we know, but that really would not prove a whole lot. Many people say lots of things in the heat of any kind of "change" coming, but when it all comes down to it, usually when the change actually happens they find it really isn't as bad as they thought, and very few do what they had said they would.

I have been in the medical field since 1968 and have worked at huge 1000 bed city hospitals and smaller 200 bed hospitals as well as other hospitals with bed sizes in between those two. Believe me, I feel like I have seen it all over all these years. Even when there were other types of hospital or medical changes, people just get all upset initially, threaten to "leave" and then find out whatever the change was, it was not so bad after all.

If you have been working in hospitals for 40 years, I am surprised you did not see the days more than 20 years ago when the malpractice premiums had started to jump up and were hitting the ceiling and the doctors were so upset, far worse than what I am seeing now with this new health care law. Many physicians, in particular certain specialties such as neurosurgeons, cardiac surgeons, anesthesiologists, OB/GYN doctors, were complaining bitterly about how they were paying outrageously high premium rates---and they were outrageously high----and that they were no longer able to afford to stay in practice and were getting out. Believe me----I heard it from so many doctors more times than I can count. And in fact, there were a few OB/GYN doctors that stopped the OB part of the practice and a few other of the physicians did move to indirect patient care areas of medicine, like administrative positions, but after all was said and done, far far fewer than had initially threatened. I think they stayed after they calmed down, just accepted that it was going to cost more to practice, and realized there were many reasons why they had become physicians and why they wanted to stay involved in direct patient care.

The point I was trying to make was people who are against the Affordable Care Act, use all kinds of scare tactics for political reasons.

just saying..In the last 2 months 7 have already stopped surgery, changed profession or retired. I am curious to see how many will stop accepting Medicare patients. Only time will tell!!

How much are doctors supposed to take? When is it going to be the tipping point. They have absorbed high malpractice insurance premiums – but there is no tort reform in the healthcare bill. The providers continuously get squeezed on Medicare payments and this will get worse. Now with insurance companies having an 80/20 rule they will need to make sure they stay within those guidelines so insurance payments to providers will be squeezed. Providers have to comply with new rules on charting and new software. This is sweeping and massive legislation that will have huge and unintended consequences.

Also, some of those “deadbeats” are healthy, working young adults who choose not to buy insurance because the chances of their needing it are slim. They are willing to take the risk. If something happens they can get the care and then set up payments. It’s a risk they are willing to take. I was very interested when Mass had healthcare reform. It is interesting to see what works and what needs to be changed. They currently have a shortage of doctors. I just don’t agree with this massive reform on a national level. Even Canada has less popular then the state of California yet we’re going to try an experiment nationwide.

I found it interesting, I'mdebtfree, when you stated that Massachusetts has a shortage of doctors. I wondered, the way you had put it, if you were indicating the shortage has to do with their Health Insurance Reform Care law or "Romneycare" and suggesting it was "less desirable to practice in Massachusetts".

According to the Robert Graham Center Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, when ranking states according to the number of primary care physicians per state, Massachusetts comes in at #10 with 7,862 primary care doctors. Virginia by the way, comes in at #13 with fewer primary care physicians.

According to iowamedical.org when ranking states looking at the total number of physicians of all specialities in 2009, Massachusetts comes in at #2 with 26,293 or 399 physicians per 100,000 people. Virginia is #18 with 260 physicians per 100,000 people.

The Association of American Medical Colleges in their 2011 State Physician Workforce Data Book also puts Massachusetts at the top among the states with the highest number of physicians per 100,000 people.

Sounds to me as though Massachusetts is doing far better than most states in the number of physicians in the state. And according to politiFact, when questioned in 2009 about their "Romneycare", 59% of the people of Massachusetts favored it.

It is unfortunate that both parties did not tackle this health care problem a long time ago when many of us saw where this whole thing was heading. One thing is for sure---the present system is just not sustainable. For everyone who has complained about "Obamacare", and most of us agree it is not perfect, no one has come up with any viable alternative. For all the years Republicans were in power there was silence on this growing problem------there was never even an attempt to address the health care problem nor look for a solution.

"For all the years Republicans were in power there was silence on this growing problem" True; Great write-up, song98.

I too worked in a hospital--a few years ago--not the medical side however, started as secretary to credit manager, stint in medical records, then Director of Admission. I believe the surgeon to which Concern refers..."One of our best Heart Surgeons has already started classes for a new career" was planning on leaving the profession for this 'new career' prior to the passage of H.R. 3200.

I don’t quite buy into the anything is better than nothing theory.

OK, question for you Ms. Debtfree:

Let's say your best friend decides he needs a motorcycle, goes out and buys a real humdinger, ignores buying any insurance, then promptly proceeds to drive into a tree. He is taken to the hospital where he receives the best of emergency medical care free of charge because he did not have insurance.

Who should pay for the emergency medical treatment; you, the motorcyclist, or the hospital?

If you ask the above question to 5 Tea Party Whack Jobs you'll get 6 different answers.

"I don’t quite buy into the anything is better than nothing theory." Really?

OK, when you're drowning I will not throw you a life preserver.

But I'd be happy to toss you an anvil.


You don't "quite buy into the anything is better than nothing theory",I'mdebtfree? If you are trying to say that this is what I was indicating, let me correct you. What I said was the Affordable Care Act is not "perfect" but it sure is addressing the problems that should have been tackled a long time ago. It also has a lot of good and necessary reforms in it. You know, things like preventive care, consumer protections from insurance company abuses, insuring the more than 16.3% of uninsured Americans (numbers obtained from U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services), and other good things.

Funny that the right wing finds so much fault with it when the obstructionist Republicans never made an honest and sincere effort to contribute anything worthwhile before it was passed. They decided instead to try to thwart the Democrats in order to not give President Obama "a win" with the hopes of making him a one term president, their stated number one goal. Now that it is law and the Supreme Court has declared it constitutional, they continue with their misinformation, exaggerations, lies, and scare tactics---all for political reasons.

Jane, I agree with you completely. I saw for myself that those physicians who did leave for other careers or retirement----and they were a very, very small number after all was said and done------had been entertaining the idea of leaving prior to whatever the "change" was. I know it is anecdotally, but I have personally seen fewer doctors upset over passage of the Affordable Care Act than they were over 20 years ago when their malpractice premiums started to skyrocket. Perhaps it is because they have seen firsthand how the uninsured patient who presents with a life-threatening illness or the uninsured young and previously healthy victim of a motor vehicle accident ends up with thousands of dollars in bills to the hospital and doctor with no way to pay---no insurance. As I remember one surgeon saying years ago, " here I am in the middle of the night losing sleep and I am not even going to get paid for working this hard to save this patient's life."

Loved your "drowning" analogy, ROFLMAO!


The Affordable Care Act Explained
(Community Service)
A series of meetings at the Samuels Library in Front Royal to answer questions, provide handouts, show videos from impartial organizations. Held on 1st and 3rd Saturdays from July 14th to the end of August. Time: 11:30 AM in Room B.

Start: Saturday, July 14, 2012 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
End:Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
Sidney Quinn
Contact Phone:
Samuels Library, Rm B (Front Royal, VA)
330 E. Criser Rd
Front Royal, VA 2263

Maybe people should get a little information

I know, it just shows doing nothing is better than anything. If anything is an anvil, please do nothing.

Leave a comment

What do you think?

(You may use HTML tags for style)


Comments that are posted on nvdaily.com represent the opinion of the commenter and not the Northern Virginia Daily/nvdaily.com. If you feel that a comment is objectionable, please click on the Report Abuse link above. We will review the reported comment and make a decision on deleting it if we feel that it contains inappropriate content.


Opinion Sections

Carolyn Long Editorial Cartoons Editorials Jules Witcover Leonard Pitts Jr. Letters to the Editor Linda Ash Mary Sanchez Paul Greenberg Reader Commentary

News | Sports | Business | Lifestyle | Obituaries | Opinion | Multimedia| Entertainment | Homes | Classifieds
Contact Us | NIE | Place a Classified | Privacy Policy | Subscribe

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137

Best Small Daily Newspaper in Virginia!

nvdaily.com | seeshenandoah.com