Why the GOP IS the root of all evil...

[techno900]

Another Dr. story.

At my last visit, my GP gave notice that his practice will change into (as I recall) "designer medicine", where he will no longer take insurance and medicare/medicaid.

Most GPs are finding that they are being over run with patients, many with medicare/medicaid which generally don't cover the Doctor's costs and result in VERY little time with the patient. Plus both parties want to reduce the Dr's reimbursements ($700 billion), so what to do?

Like my Dr, if they are good and have well to do clients, they bail on the vast majority of patients to serve just a few of those willing to pay cash for quality time, care and service. Obviously, not all Doctors can do this, but how many can?

How wide spread is this? I have no idea, but the bottom line is that even with medicare/medicaid and/or Obama care, getting in to see a GP in a reasonable amount of time (assuming one will see you at all) WILL only be a pipe dream. Welcome to the Emergency room where those with insurance will have to wait a dozen+ hours to see a Dr along with the illegals. Doctors aren't stupid and many will figure a way to reduce the work load and increase profits, and it will be at our expense, both health and $ wise.

The question is, who has the better plan to fix this? No reason to debate this since we know where the parties stand, but the problem is real and funding will dry up shortly, so we have to do something. This of course is from the perspective of someone on medicare. Those on private insurance are in a better situation at the moment since Dr reimbursements are higher than the government, but that could also change.

Even with the spin and lies from both parties, at least the issue is now on every one's mind (well not everyone, there are plenty of ignorant soles out there that don't have a clue).

[mac]

Here's what avoiding regulation can do for corporate profits, and how the fire at the Richmond refinery shows how these battles play out.

[coboardhead]

Mac

I don't deal these days with regulations on the clean air act and its enforcement. But, as a structural engineer, I often design upgrades to structures and bridges. Sometimes an owner of a deficient structure will be interested in reinforcing his structure to provide a "safer" condition. Depending on the whim of the local bureaucrat, the owner may not be allowed to perform this work unless it meets full compliance to the building codes. Often, it is simply too expensive to do this and the work is shelved.

I, recently, designed a new fire escape on an historic building. However, the new geometry required the relocation of a non-complying propane tank. I proposed moving the tank six inches (actually closer to code compliance). This was denied by the fire official. So, the old stair will be left in place.

I do not know if some of this has occurred in the Chevron plant. But, it is worth noting that sometimes strict enforcement of the rules can produce the opposite of the intended purpose. Enforcement agency personnel are afraid, unable or unwilling to allow compromises that could produce significantly better results.

[mac]

CB--I agree in the context of relatively small projects like housing or commercial development. City planning and code staff can be inflexible and you can get contrary results. More flexibility is often provided in rehabbing a historical structure. The Chevron situation is dramatically different. While some of the enviros fighting are absolutely bats, and unwilling to compromise, the issue I wanted to point out is that the Bush administration essentially gave the oil industry a way to avoid--for a very long time--meeting Clean Air Act standards. This, and the pressure on operations people to be efficient, is the backdrop to the battle over modernization at the Richmond refinery.

[swchandler]

mac, I'm a bit confused about your first quote in your 05:24 post. It shows a January 8, 2010 date, but it goes on to indicate that the Bush Administration eased clean air rules. Should the date have been 2009? The Bush Administration was long gone by 2010.

[mac]

Chandler--the date must reflect a reposting. I remember the rule relaxation, and Christie was a Bushie (not that bad), but I didn't bother to run down the actual rule-making.

[mac]

[MalibuGuru]

ineptitude is 22 counties around the world burning.

[swchandler]

Come on Bard, you could give a crap about the Islamic world, so it comes out as patently pretentious on your part that you show a false concern for these North African and Middle Eastern countries with problems right now, and easily pile the blame on President Obama.

If you were really honest about things, I think you readily know that Romney doesn't even come close to having the knowledge, sophistication and credibility to handle anything in much of the world, let alone in the Islamic world. I think it's fair to say the President Obama's record over the last 4 years hasn't been impeccable or without flaws, nevertheless, he's made great strides over the policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration. Based on the advice Romney is receiving on international politics, it arguably represents a return to the poor policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration. Why go back to such nonsense that stained American's reputation in the world.

[MalibuGuru]

So how is Obama different from Bush?

Taxes? The Same.
Wars? More of them
Jobs? less of them
Bailouts? The same, even more
Immigration? The same.
Abortion? The same
Deficit? Way more
Food Stamps? More


Putin thinks he's a fool. Germany thinks he's a fool. Riots and burning in 22 countries filled with American hatred. China is building their military while we disassemble ours.

The only thing he can say is the stock market is higher, (after trillions in steroidal injections of cash.

99% of the bureaucrats who worked for Bush now work for Obama. What difference? What change except of bad change?