MTG Salvation

Quote from hoffmkr »

I like Polymorphist's Jest better than Curse the Swine.
It doesn't target and is instant.
Curse is better when they are not attacking blocking but it's also 2/2 vs 1/1.

Quote from Xanatos.

What about a blue splash for Whispering Madness?

It fills the graveyard even faster, disrupts our opponents wildly, and combos well with Whip of Erebox and/or Varolz, the Scar-Striped (keeps our curve low and gives us another way to access our cards in the graveyard).

Quote from blaine1johnson

Here is my most current list for Standard Dredge:

DeckMagic OnlineOCTGN2ApprenticeBuy These Cards
Creatures:33 4 Elvish Mystic 4 Deathrite Shaman 4 Sylvan Caryatid 4 Satyr Wayfinder 4 Herald of Torment 4 Nighthowler 2 Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord 3 Shadowborn Demon 4 Nemesis of Mortals	Spells:8 4 Commune with the Gods 4 Grisly Salvage Lands:19 8 Forest 7 Swamp 4 Overgrown Tomb	Sideboard: 3 Abrupt Decay 3 Golgari Charm 3 Lifebane Zombie 3 Mistcutter Hydra 1 Shadowborn Demon 2 Whip of Erebos

Quote from Vaclav

The government doesn't dictate anything about what the providers can charge - have you read the ACA? That's not even REMOTELY true.

Insurance companies are caged to inflation indexes but if they can prove the absolute need, they can request a waiver.

And "cash only" doctors can still do insurance FYI. That's how many providers have worked if they don't want to run a front office for years - the demand is lower because of pre-payment instead of post-payment but the system works the same nonetheless. (i.e. dieticians and psychiatrists largely fall under that topic RIGHT NOW)

On demand increasing, not really - it's been demonstrated that everywhere else in the world that insurance coverage vs. usage doesn't vary. If you're sick and you need a doctor you don't avoid the doctor because of it unless its something minor where you'd weigh the value of your time and money on copays against it, JUST LIKE TODAY - the only difference being the copays reduce the cost from $40-45 for a "quick clinic" visit to $20-25 - where a $20 threshold for most people is not even noteworthy.

On it increasing the allotment, the ACA itself mandates that medical schools admit more people in GP programs, I think at a 3:2 ratio to previous, but it's been a while since I've read it and it's buried deep and I've NEVER seen that section discussed. It's only for GPs though. However, as mentioned after it, the AMA still ties their hands.

As for your mises link, which makes me roll my eyes because mises.org routinely presents flawed data - but contrary to your own labeling of the link and their own title to it, it doesn't do it THROUGH the state any more than the state says that we need to follow their rules - THEY ARE A PRIVATE AGENCY THAT THE FED DOESN'T SETUP THE RULES FOR. Much like most fools that follow mises as scripture you're missing the forest through the trees - this is literally a case of an industry "self-regulating" and being given all the powers they need to do so, something Mise-drones often clamour for (although in some cases without any teeth to them regulating others - half of you fools want complete anarchy and look at the 1920's as a great old time).

Quote from Vaclav

Quote from RikshawHoward

How does the ACA get around the supply problem it has created? I mean in terms of care facilities, medical devices and equipment, and doctors?

Supply is supposed to meet demand - and it really doesn't "create any problem" in regards to such besides fools that believe nonsense that is not accurate even with a cursory look. (Which admittedly many doctors are quite busy, so they don't have that much time to investigate things properly themselves - but still...)

It's a case of self-fulfilling prophesy. They're worried the demand will raise, so they protect themselves by refusing to share the load of patients that changes something from not being a problem (no more patients are projected - healthcare is a subject of inelastic demand - if you need healthcare you will get it, cost be damned outside of a rare few people that carry DNR orders [which are under 1% last time I asked my lawyer who holds mine]) to an actual supply problem.

Hell, the ACA technically increased the number of doctors that can come into the workforce slightly - although almost entirely on the GP front (but then again GPs are going to take the brunt).

And regardless, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S restrictions on how many doctors come into the workforce has never been the problem - the Federal limits on schools and the like aren't actually EVER being hit, they're close to DOUBLE what the AMA allows who does everything in their power to keep the scarcity of Medical licenses up. [And the AMA is NOT a Federal agency]

The following year the AMA was officially launched. Members' efforts were at first slow to yield results. One of their first successes was in getting the exclusive right to positions in the federal government. Then, around 1870, the AMA began to find success at setting up medical boards in each state. The rationale behind these medical boards was twofold.

First, it was assumed that only doctors knew enough about medicine to be able to determine whether a physician was competent. And second, it was felt that doctors accused of misconduct should not be subjected to the public humiliation of an open trial. Typically the AMA would team up with key lawmakers in a state and lobby for legislation to "protect public safety." The idea was that incompetent and unscrupulous doctors were doing great harm to healthcare consumers. There was no proof of this, but it was their claim.

A state consumer protection agency staffed by AMA members was promoted. That is, a state board made up of AMA members would examine applicants who wanted to practice medicine and only license those who were, according to them, competent and morally fit. So each state in turn passed a Medical Practice Act which created a board of medical examiners with police powers to enforce their decisions. It was critical to the AMA's long-range plans that states establish these medical boards.

Quote from Surging Chaos

Quote from BatterysRevenge

The ACA is a needed first step toward single payer, and people are throwing a hissy fit.

Why do people seriously want single-payer? I know the statism is strong on this forum, but what makes people think having the government continuously tighten its vicegrip on healthcare is going to make it more affordable or more accessible? The government, unlike the free market, does not use the price mechanism to know how to appropriately allocate resources to consumers. This is a major problem to consider if people want the government to be picking up the tab for healthcare costs.