Cataract Surgey

[monster]

This is crazy. You shouldn't have to wait a month to go back.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by monster

This is crazy. You shouldn't have to wait a month to go back.

Vote for the Democratic Party.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Vote for the Democratic Party.

I might, once I can afford citizenship........

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Vote for the Democratic Party.

I see it just the opposite way.
As millions more people become insured with a relatively static number of doctors, waiting will only increase, not decrease.

[monster]

So insurance should be made less attainable so those who are insured can be seen more quickly?

[classicman]

Is that really what you got out of my post?

[monster]

No, that was a question related to what I learned from your post.

Which was that you believe that more people insured and no more doctors (assumption not mine) = longer wait times.

The obvious extrapolation leads to my question. I'd be delighted to learn of any alternate extrapolation and indeed any better way forward.

[classicman]

you believe that more people insured and no more doctors = longer wait times.

Correct. That is where it ends. You do the math.

[monster]

Originally Posted by classicman

I see it just the opposite way.
As millions more people become insured with a relatively static number of doctors, waiting will only increase, not decrease.

So voting "the opposite way" will do what to alleviate the problem?

How will that reduce/not increase wait times?

Are you saying that "voting the opposite way" will lead to fewer people having insurance, so those who have it will wait for less time? And if so, do you believe that is a good thing? And for whom? And if not, how to you see that "the opposite way" to voting Democrat is going to help? Or do you just think it can't make it worse?

Here, Buster is going through the VA. Maybe you are trying to say that if more people have government based insurance, the VA service will get worse? I'm not sure they necessarily use the same services, but I'm happy to be corrected on that.

[monster]

Originally Posted by classicman

Correct. That is where it ends. You do the math.

As a mathematician, one of my primary concerns is to ensure there are no assumptions in my working.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by monster

So voting "the opposite way" will do what to alleviate the problem?

I never said it would or wouldn't.

How will that reduce/not increase wait times?

see above.

Are you saying that "voting the opposite way" will lead to fewer people having insurance, so those who have it will wait for less time?
And if so, do you believe that is a good thing?
And for whom? And if not, how to you see that "the opposite way" to voting Democrat is going to help? Or do you just think it can't make it worse?

No, I'm not saying any of that. Sheesh.
I am not the one who made the claim that voting Democratic will reduce wait times. Perhaps your questions will be better answered by the poster who inferred it would.

Here, Buster is going through the VA. Maybe you are trying to say that if more people have government based insurance, the VA service will get worse?

Maybe it will.
Who do you think will pay more to hire doctors after millions more are added to the system?
Who will be taking the lowest paid positions? and why?

[monster]

Originally Posted by classicman

Who do you think will pay more to hire doctors after millions more are added to the system?

Who will pay more? More than what/whom?

If, by "millions more added to the system", you mean more people covered by government medical insurance, and if by "pay more' you mean who will fund it, then I think that if extra doctors are hired, it will be funded by the taxpayers. But you made the assumption that the number of doctors would remain the same. You are moving the goalposts.

Who will be taking the lowest paid positions? and why?

which lowest paid positions?

[classicman]

I am referring to doctors ... Who will pay more for doctors after millions more "insureds" are added to the system?
Because millions more will be added to the system - of that there is no doubt.

But you made the assumption that the number of doctors would remain the same. You are moving the goalposts.

Where are new doctors coming from? No goalpost movement whatsoever. Its the same issue.
Who will pay more for the doctors services, the Gov't or private institutions?

which lowest paid positions?

The lowest paid medical positions for the doctors.
Again, which doctors will take the lowest paid positions? Why?

[monster]

Originally Posted by classicman

I see it just the opposite way.
As millions more people become insured with a relatively static number of doctors, waiting will only increase, not decrease.

Originally Posted by classicman

I am referring to doctors ... Who will pay more for doctors after millions more "insureds" are added to the system?
Because millions more will be added to the system - of that there is no doubt.

Where are new doctors coming from? No goalpost movement whatsoever. Its the same issue.

"a relatively static number of doctors"
"Where are new doctors coming from?"

No new doctors if the number is static.
>>> moving the goalposts

Who will pay more for the doctors services, the Gov't or private institutions?

I would think the taxpayers. (Who are also the beneficiaries)

The lowest paid medical positions for the doctors.
Again, which doctors will take the lowest paid positions? Why?

The newest doctors, presumably. Because they will get paid.

Originally Posted by classicman

I never said it would or wouldn't.

then did you actualy have a point?

see above.

ditto

No, I'm not saying any of that. Sheesh.
I am not the one who made the claim that voting Democratic will reduce wait times. Perhaps your questions will be better answered by the poster who inferred it would.

Did he actually claim that? Or even infer it? I'd be delighted to read your thought progresion on that inference.

[monster]

BB, I apologise. you didn't need this crap on your thread, but some things just shouldn't be let lie.