(08-11-2014 12:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, one doctor tells NPR as reported by the 'objective' Daily Caller that he can't survive if a small percentage of his patients get him a slightly less amount of income and that's....what is it again?

Of course if he refuses all medicare patients I'm sure his practice will be TOTALLY sustainable!

And I love the author cited in the OP:

"Ronak Kallianpur has written for Conservative Post since it's inception in 2013. His background consists of Marketing, PR, and Advertising."

Is it tomorrow yet?

You need to clarify yourself some. Do you mean Medicaid or Medicare? They are 2 different things. You also have the expansion of Medicaid as part of the ACA, along with those Bronze Silver and Gold plans.
So here is a little test. Call around to a couple of Family Physicians offices. Tell them you are new in town and looking for a doctor. When they ask you what insurance you have say Medicaid. Then see how many take you. Repeat the exercise using Bronze Silver and Gold packages.
Exercise number 2. Look up what an insurance plan covers under the 3 ACA plans and compare it to what they offer in their 'regular' plans. As extra credit, see what prescriptions are covered.

(08-11-2014 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Never said that. You on the other hand seem to be predicting that this will end the practice of medicine entirely. It won't.
Like always. You're a master at hyperbole.
And haven't you left the country yet?

Hyperbole, thy name is RedTom.

Except you're not really engaging in hyperbole, you're out and out lying.

For starters, where on earth have I ever said anything remotely approaching "predicting that this will end the practice of medicine entirely"? (this ought to be good) Either identify specifically what I've said to suggest that, or admit that you are lying.

What I have said repeatedly is that making it less attractive, economically or otherwise, to be a health care provider will negatively impact the supply of health care providers. You have repeatedly disagreed with me, so that's when you've at least implicitly expressed your belief that it won't. Either agree with me that cutting payments to suppliers will reduce supply, or admit that your, "Never said that," comment is another blatant lie.

I'll agree to reset this conversation if you'd like, but you're going to have to observe at least minimal standards of honesty if it is to continue.

Sure.

As soon as you post JUST ONE of the "hundred if not thousands of articles" on Adegbile.

(08-11-2014 08:53 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, one doctor tells NPR as reported by the 'objective' Daily Caller that he can't survive if a small percentage of his patients get him a slightly less amount of income and that's....what is it again?

Of course if he refuses all medicare patients I'm sure his practice will be TOTALLY sustainable!

And I love the author cited in the OP:

"Ronak Kallianpur has written for Conservative Post since it's inception in 2013. His background consists of Marketing, PR, and Advertising."

Is it tomorrow yet?

You need to clarify yourself some. Do you mean Medicaid or Medicare? They are 2 different things. You also have the expansion of Medicaid as part of the ACA, along with those Bronze Silver and Gold plans.
So here is a little test. Call around to a couple of Family Physicians offices. Tell them you are new in town and looking for a doctor. When they ask you what insurance you have say Medicaid. Then see how many take you. Repeat the exercise using Bronze Silver and Gold packages.
Exercise number 2. Look up what an insurance plan covers under the 3 ACA plans and compare it to what they offer in their 'regular' plans. As extra credit, see what prescriptions are covered.

Okay...I'll get right on that.

The Answer

Ummm....pathetic old man...you do know that you can hover over links and see the path at the bottom of the page don't you?

Moran.

(08-12-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Never said that. You on the other hand seem to be predicting that this will end the practice of medicine entirely. It won't.
Like always. You're a master at hyperbole.
And haven't you left the country yet?

Hyperbole, thy name is RedTom.
Except you're not really engaging in hyperbole, you're out and out lying.
For starters, where on earth have I ever said anything remotely approaching "predicting that this will end the practice of medicine entirely"? (this ought to be good) Either identify specifically what I've said to suggest that, or admit that you are lying.
What I have said repeatedly is that making it less attractive, economically or otherwise, to be a health care provider will negatively impact the supply of health care providers. You have repeatedly disagreed with me, so that's when you've at least implicitly expressed your belief that it won't. Either agree with me that cutting payments to suppliers will reduce supply, or admit that your, "Never said that," comment is another blatant lie.
I'll agree to reset this conversation if you'd like, but you're going to have to observe at least minimal standards of honesty if it is to continue.

Sure.
As soon as you post JUST ONE of the "hundred if not thousands of articles" on Adegbile.

I have posted them. So have you, IIRC. Any article about Adegbile that fails to indicate that he repudiated the rabble rousers is an article that supports my point. This is what you keep failing to understand. My point is not that he did something he should not have done, but rather that he failed to do something that he should have done.

We are applying different standards to his behaviour. We probably have some disagreement as to what he may or may not have done factually. But that's not the difference. You are holding him to a much lower standard than I am, and the same facts that are serious violations to me are no big deal to you. And the reason it's important that even a significant number of democrats agree is that such bipartisan agreement can only mean they agree with my standard.

You keep demanding proof of some sin of commission. That's not my point. My point is that they were sins of omission, and any article that omits to mention any appropriate action on his part is an article that supports my position.

I'd really appreciate if you would make the effort to understand this, because I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing over and over.

(08-12-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  As soon as you post JUST ONE of the "hundred if not thousands of articles" on Adegbile.

Where have you posted even one indicating that he disavowed the rabble rousers?

(08-12-2014 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  As soon as you post JUST ONE of the "hundred if not thousands of articles" on Adegbile.

Where have you posted even one indicating that he disavowed the rabble rousers?

(08-12-2014 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 08:53 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, one doctor tells NPR as reported by the 'objective' Daily Caller that he can't survive if a small percentage of his patients get him a slightly less amount of income and that's....what is it again?

Of course if he refuses all medicare patients I'm sure his practice will be TOTALLY sustainable!

And I love the author cited in the OP:

"Ronak Kallianpur has written for Conservative Post since it's inception in 2013. His background consists of Marketing, PR, and Advertising."

Is it tomorrow yet?

You need to clarify yourself some. Do you mean Medicaid or Medicare? They are 2 different things. You also have the expansion of Medicaid as part of the ACA, along with those Bronze Silver and Gold plans.
So here is a little test. Call around to a couple of Family Physicians offices. Tell them you are new in town and looking for a doctor. When they ask you what insurance you have say Medicaid. Then see how many take you. Repeat the exercise using Bronze Silver and Gold packages.
Exercise number 2. Look up what an insurance plan covers under the 3 ACA plans and compare it to what they offer in their 'regular' plans. As extra credit, see what prescriptions are covered.

Okay...I'll get right on that.

So you are not willing to actually educate yourself first hand? You'd rather just regurgitate something you read from someone else.
Awesome

(08-12-2014 11:55 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 08:53 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, one doctor tells NPR as reported by the 'objective' Daily Caller that he can't survive if a small percentage of his patients get him a slightly less amount of income and that's....what is it again?

Of course if he refuses all medicare patients I'm sure his practice will be TOTALLY sustainable!

And I love the author cited in the OP:

"Ronak Kallianpur has written for Conservative Post since it's inception in 2013. His background consists of Marketing, PR, and Advertising."

Is it tomorrow yet?

You need to clarify yourself some. Do you mean Medicaid or Medicare? They are 2 different things. You also have the expansion of Medicaid as part of the ACA, along with those Bronze Silver and Gold plans.
So here is a little test. Call around to a couple of Family Physicians offices. Tell them you are new in town and looking for a doctor. When they ask you what insurance you have say Medicaid. Then see how many take you. Repeat the exercise using Bronze Silver and Gold packages.
Exercise number 2. Look up what an insurance plan covers under the 3 ACA plans and compare it to what they offer in their 'regular' plans. As extra credit, see what prescriptions are covered.

Okay...I'll get right on that.

So you are not willing to actually educate yourself first hand? You'd rather just regurgitate something you read from someone else.
Awesome

Get real dude...no...I don't care to waste my time calling a bunch of people and wasting their time for some clown on a meaningless message board. Sorry.

You are the one who needs to get 'real'. As in understanding what you are 'really' saying. You aren't wasting anyone's time by looking up RX drug coverages on the internet. You really don't even have to call the offices to see what plans they take. Several have them listed on websites. Heck, you spend enough time here, symphony some of that time to look at what is 'really' going on around you. It would also help you 'real'ize the difference between Medicaid and Medicare.
But if you don't want to see what is 'really' happening, have fun in your world of unicorns and skittle rainbows.

Is it tomorrow yet?

(08-12-2014 09:21 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ummm....pathetic old man...you do know that you can hover over links and see the path at the bottom of the page don't you?

Moran.

The Moron calling someone a Moran. Interesting.

(08-12-2014 02:54 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:21 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ummm....pathetic old man...you do know that you can hover over links and see the path at the bottom of the page don't you?

Moran.

The Moron calling someone a Moran. Interesting.

Went right over your head I see.

(08-12-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sure.
As soon as you post JUST ONE of the "hundred if not thousands of articles" on Adegbile.

Well, here's one (of many), from a perhaps unexpected source, left-leaning columnist Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, about a somewhat different but closely related problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/r...story.html

This is one paragraph in a longer column attacking the vote against him:

"A more nuanced argument that Senate Republicans made in attacking Adegbile and distinguishing his representation from Roberts’s is that other Legal Defense Fund lawyers, whom Adegbile was supervising, made offensive out-of-court comments. This seems a strained and tangential basis on which to torpedo a nominee."

Writing in an opinion piece, the last sentence is an expression of her opinion. I have a different opinion. He should have disavowed those offensive statements and publicly disciplined those who made them. As their supervisor, it was his duty to do so. Failure to do so is failing to comply with minimum acceptable standards. The same can be said of his lack of comments about the rabble-rousing mobs, which have been documented many times. Basically, any article about Adegbile which fails to indicate that he disavowed such actions is a description of unacceptable conduct on his part.

I don't think we have a factual disagreement. I think we disagree over the proper standard for his actions. I believe my standard is the proper one to which to hold him, even more so in the position to which he was nominated but rejected. In a highly charged partisan vote, at least six democrats would appear to agree with me on the standard (recognizing that Reid was as usual playing political games), and no republicans agreed with you.

My hundreds or thousands of articles won't do anything to change your mind, because you don't agree on the standard.

(08-19-2014 11:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sure.
As soon as you post JUST ONE of the "hundred if not thousands of articles" on Adegbile.

Well, here's one (of many), from a perhaps unexpected source, left-leaning columnist Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, about a somewhat different but closely related problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/r...story.html

This is one paragraph in a longer column attacking the vote against him:

"A more nuanced argument that Senate Republicans made in attacking Adegbile and distinguishing his representation from Roberts’s is that other Legal Defense Fund lawyers, whom Adegbile was supervising, made offensive out-of-court comments. This seems a strained and tangential basis on which to torpedo a nominee."

Writing in an opinion piece, the last sentence is an expression of her opinion. I have a different opinion. He should have disavowed those offensive statements and publicly disciplined those who made them. As their supervisor, it was his duty to do so. Failure to do so is failing to comply with minimum acceptable standards. The same can be said of his lack of comments about the rabble-rousing mobs, which have been documented many times. Basically, any article about Adegbile which fails to indicate that he disavowed such actions is a description of unacceptable conduct on his part.

I don't think we have a factual disagreement. I think we disagree over the proper standard for his actions. I believe my standard is the proper one to which to hold him, even more so in the position to which he was nominated but rejected. In a highly charged partisan vote, at least six democrats would appear to agree with me on the standard (recognizing that Reid was as usual playing political games), and no republicans agreed with you.

My hundreds or thousands of articles won't do anything to change your mind, because you don't agree on the standard.

I prefer the last line of the opinion piece:

Quote:Obama termed the vote a “travesty.” It’s a sadly fitting word.

Curious though...what were the offensive out-of-court comments and were they made while on the job? If not, I doubt you can publicly discipline anyone under your employ for personal comments.

(08-19-2014 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious though...what were the offensive out-of-court comments and were they made while on the job? If not, I doubt you can publicly discipline anyone under your employ for personal comments.

As I say, I think we just have a difference of opinion, particularly if you think any part of this was a "travesty."

As for the specifics of the comments, I haven't a clue, this is the first I've heard of them. I just decided to post one article, and this is the first one that came up when I hit the search button. I presume that there must be SOME comments, since obviously a left-leaning columnist referred to them, so I'm taking it as an admission against interest. For the record, if this were Ann Coulter making the comment, I'd look for backup, but coming from the left I'm not. I think you are correct, if they were made on personal time, there probably isn't much that can be done in the way of disciplining. But there's still a lot that can be done, and was left undone, in the area of disavowal.

And it's not the things done, but the things left undone, that to me disqualify him in this case, particularly for the specific position nominated. I realize those don't disqualify him in your mind. We'll just have to disagree on that.