59% of U.S. doctors support universal healthcare

[Harry Dresden]

Ed Schultz is going to Canada to see if what you guys say about their healthcare is true.

If you ask 100 Canadians if they would prefer to have our healthcare or their healthcare, what percentage would say ours?

I think 1 in 10 if you are lucky would give up what they have and pay double for ours like we do.

I just called HP customer service, about my printer, and spoke to a woman in Toronto. She'd never give up her Canadian Health Care. She also said that the US wouldn't get it because of the insurance companies.

might as well close the thread, then, huh?

yea i called logiteck customer service and talked to a guy in Calgary...he said their system has a lot of things wrong and he wants a private co. but cant have it.....

 

[Nik]

Oh, I see. So when you post anecdotal evidence of their flaws, its representative of wider problems, but when I post anecdotal evidence of American flaws, its "every system has problems"?

Nice cognitive dissonance there.

Not at all. I said both systems have flaws and that those of government run health care are/will be worse. What exactly are you not clear about.

Why you posted specific anecdotes, if they don't mean anything.

The current system doesn't create efficiency.

No shit. That was my point.

Simply a government run system would increase inefficiency. Does it appear to you that doctors are sitting around just waiting to see patients? Never has appeared that way in my time and I have more experience with the system than you probably ever will. Doctors not seeing patients is inefficient, yet despite the fact that people have to pay for healthcare that really doesn't happen here. You talk about efficiency than completely contradict yourself on the issue.

Its not the efficiency of Doctors seeing patients/not seeing patients, its WHICH patients they are seeing.

Making a plan that addresses problems early instead of waiting until they have to go to the hospital (since thats pretty much the only way an illegal immigrant can get healthcare) will reduce costs by itself.

So explain, how exactly, with the increase demand on the system is it going to treat the worst first (as you say it should) and at the same time going to find time to practice preventative medicine? A system that can't do the later, but does the former (as again you say it should) doesn't sound all that efficient to me.

Even waiting lists (which don't really exist in most first world countries NHS systems) are better than having to wait until you have to visit the ER for every little thing that might come up.

Oh. And heres a novel idea. Take all the billions of dollars that go to insurance companies, and train and hire more doctors.

 

[Bern80]

Why you posted specific anecdotes, if they don't mean anything.

Because those anecodtes are going to more prevalent under one system than the other

Its not the efficiency of Doctors seeing patients/not seeing patients, its WHICH patients they are seeing.

True. under NHS in this country, doctors would be treating the worst first and putting off less serious things until they don become serious. Again I ask, why that would be considered efficient.

Even waiting lists (which don't really exist in most first world countries NHS systems) are better than having to wait until you have to visit the ER for every little thing that might come up.

Oh. And heres a novel idea. Take all the billions of dollars that go to insurance companies, and train and hire more doctors.

A key point you people for NHS seem to gloss over is that America is NOT like every other developed country. To say that because it works in other countries (which is also open for considerable debate) it will work here ignores those vast difference.

And your novel idea is actually isn't all that great as that would likely require lowering the standards by which one can become one. Unless you can show me that there is a significant number of new MDs simply unable to find work.

 

[Navy1960]

He pointed to California and Texas as examples where a $250,000 noneconomic damage cap has kept doctors' premiums down. According to 2007 data from the Medical Liability Monitor, which tracks insurers' medical liability rates nationwide, Texas posted some of the lowest rates in the country for ob-gyns.

"The fact remains that states with effective caps have much lower premiums than similar states without caps, and that difference will be maintained as rates go up or down elsewhere," said Lawrence E. Smarr, president of the Physician Insurers Assn. of America

Dr. Plested said patient care remains in jeopardy in states where premiums have reached sky-high levels, such as Florida. Medical Liability Monitor statistics showed that Florida had the highest annual premiums in the nation in 2007. Some internists paid $68,867, while some general surgeons and ob-gyns paid $275,466
AMNews: March 3, 2008. AMA analysis reaffirms: Tort reforms work ... American Medical News

Internists' premiums in states with caps were 17% less than in states without caps. General surgeons' and ob-gyns' rates were 21% and 26% lower, respectively.
A $250,000 award limit in states without effective reforms could result in premium savings of $1.4 billion.
The number of physicians practicing in high-risk specialties is 4% to 7% higher in states with caps.
A 60% increase in medical liability premiums between 2000 and 2003 was linked to a $7.1 billion increase in spending on physician Medicare services.
A 10% increase in claims payments was tied to a 1.5% to 1.8% increase in utilization of diagnostic and imaging procedures.
AMNews: March 3, 2008. AMA analysis reaffirms: Tort reforms work ... American Medical News

A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that in 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. Total uncompensated educational, health care and incarceration costs were estimated to be 10.5 billion.

Care is frequently provided to illegal immigrants by emergency rooms and is provided when a crisis exists rather than as preventive practice. Both phenomena add to the high cost of health care.
High Cost of Medical Care for Illegal Immigrants

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI]YouTube - Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital[/ame]

To deny these issues and at the same time, advocate a govt. run healthcase system will do nothing to lower the costs of healthcare in this nation. What I have advocated for some time now is that every issue that effects healthcare costs in this nation must be addressed and must be done so in a manner that is fair to all. If the goal is to have healthcare coverage that is affordable for those that WANT it and thats the key then to simply advocate a blanket coverage for everyone as a mandate without addressing the issues that cause healthcare costs to rise is not only foolish it will not end up in the desired result. Further, it will burden this economy in such a manner as to cause this nation to end up in much the same mode as Ca. is today and end up having to pay it's bllls with IOU's

 

[Nik]

Why you posted specific anecdotes, if they don't mean anything.

Because those anecodtes are going to more prevalent under one system than the other

Pure speculation. Even if that were the case, specific anecdotes prove nothing.

Its not the efficiency of Doctors seeing patients/not seeing patients, its WHICH patients they are seeing.

True. under NHS in this country, doctors would be treating the worst first and putting off less serious things until they don become serious. Again I ask, why that would be considered efficient.

You are assuming that they would be put off until they become serious.

Even waiting lists (which don't really exist in most first world countries NHS systems) are better than having to wait until you have to visit the ER for every little thing that might come up.

Oh. And heres a novel idea. Take all the billions of dollars that go to insurance companies, and train and hire more doctors.

A key point you people for NHS seem to gloss over is that America is NOT like every other developed country. To say that because it works in other countries (which is also open for considerable debate) it will work here ignores those vast difference.

Oh? What are the differences, and please explain why that means it won't work here.

And your novel idea is actually isn't all that great as that would likely require lowering the standards by which one can become one. Unless you can show me that there is a significant number of new MDs simply unable to find work.

Raising salaries. Funding more medical schools. Or do you not understand basic economics?

 

[Nik]

He pointed to California and Texas as examples where a $250,000 noneconomic damage cap has kept doctors' premiums down. According to 2007 data from the Medical Liability Monitor, which tracks insurers' medical liability rates nationwide, Texas posted some of the lowest rates in the country for ob-gyns.

"The fact remains that states with effective caps have much lower premiums than similar states without caps, and that difference will be maintained as rates go up or down elsewhere," said Lawrence E. Smarr, president of the Physician Insurers Assn. of America

Dr. Plested said patient care remains in jeopardy in states where premiums have reached sky-high levels, such as Florida. Medical Liability Monitor statistics showed that Florida had the highest annual premiums in the nation in 2007. Some internists paid $68,867, while some general surgeons and ob-gyns paid $275,466
AMNews: March 3, 2008. AMA analysis reaffirms: Tort reforms work ... American Medical News

Internists' premiums in states with caps were 17% less than in states without caps. General surgeons' and ob-gyns' rates were 21% and 26% lower, respectively.
A $250,000 award limit in states without effective reforms could result in premium savings of $1.4 billion.
The number of physicians practicing in high-risk specialties is 4% to 7% higher in states with caps.
A 60% increase in medical liability premiums between 2000 and 2003 was linked to a $7.1 billion increase in spending on physician Medicare services.
A 10% increase in claims payments was tied to a 1.5% to 1.8% increase in utilization of diagnostic and imaging procedures.
AMNews: March 3, 2008. AMA analysis reaffirms: Tort reforms work ... American Medical News

Of course capping tort reforms keeps insurance premiums down. What this doesn't address is whether it makes healthcare cheaper for the patients, and what effect this change has on healthcare standards.

A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that in 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. Total uncompensated educational, health care and incarceration costs were estimated to be 10.5 billion.

Maybe if we offered them care other than the ER, it would be cheaper, eh?

Care is frequently provided to illegal immigrants by emergency rooms and is provided when a crisis exists rather than as preventive practice. Both phenomena add to the high cost of health care.
High Cost of Medical Care for Illegal Immigrants

YouTube - Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital

To deny these issues and at the same time, advocate a govt. run healthcase system will do nothing to lower the costs of healthcare in this nation. What I have advocated for some time now is that every issue that effects healthcare costs in this nation must be addressed and must be done so in a manner that is fair to all. If the goal is to have healthcare coverage that is affordable for those that WANT it and thats the key then to simply advocate a blanket coverage for everyone as a mandate without addressing the issues that cause healthcare costs to rise is not only foolish it will not end up in the desired result. Further, it will burden this economy in such a manner as to cause this nation to end up in much the same mode as Ca. is today and end up having to pay it's bllls with IOU's

Unless you want to start turning away illegals at emergency rooms and letting them die on the street, then its much cheaper to address their problems BEFORE they get to the ER.

 

[Navy1960]

He pointed to California and Texas as examples where a $250,000 noneconomic damage cap has kept doctors' premiums down. According to 2007 data from the Medical Liability Monitor, which tracks insurers' medical liability rates nationwide, Texas posted some of the lowest rates in the country for ob-gyns.

"The fact remains that states with effective caps have much lower premiums than similar states without caps, and that difference will be maintained as rates go up or down elsewhere," said Lawrence E. Smarr, president of the Physician Insurers Assn. of America

Dr. Plested said patient care remains in jeopardy in states where premiums have reached sky-high levels, such as Florida. Medical Liability Monitor statistics showed that Florida had the highest annual premiums in the nation in 2007. Some internists paid $68,867, while some general surgeons and ob-gyns paid $275,466
AMNews: March 3, 2008. AMA analysis reaffirms: Tort reforms work ... American Medical News

Internists' premiums in states with caps were 17% less than in states without caps. General surgeons' and ob-gyns' rates were 21% and 26% lower, respectively.
A $250,000 award limit in states without effective reforms could result in premium savings of $1.4 billion.
The number of physicians practicing in high-risk specialties is 4% to 7% higher in states with caps.
A 60% increase in medical liability premiums between 2000 and 2003 was linked to a $7.1 billion increase in spending on physician Medicare services.
A 10% increase in claims payments was tied to a 1.5% to 1.8% increase in utilization of diagnostic and imaging procedures.
AMNews: March 3, 2008. AMA analysis reaffirms: Tort reforms work ... American Medical News

Of course capping tort reforms keeps insurance premiums down. What this doesn't address is whether it makes healthcare cheaper for the patients, and what effect this change has on healthcare standards.

A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that in 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. Total uncompensated educational, health care and incarceration costs were estimated to be 10.5 billion.

Maybe if we offered them care other than the ER, it would be cheaper, eh?

Care is frequently provided to illegal immigrants by emergency rooms and is provided when a crisis exists rather than as preventive practice. Both phenomena add to the high cost of health care.
High Cost of Medical Care for Illegal Immigrants

YouTube - Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital

To deny these issues and at the same time, advocate a govt. run healthcase system will do nothing to lower the costs of healthcare in this nation. What I have advocated for some time now is that every issue that effects healthcare costs in this nation must be addressed and must be done so in a manner that is fair to all. If the goal is to have healthcare coverage that is affordable for those that WANT it and thats the key then to simply advocate a blanket coverage for everyone as a mandate without addressing the issues that cause healthcare costs to rise is not only foolish it will not end up in the desired result. Further, it will burden this economy in such a manner as to cause this nation to end up in much the same mode as Ca. is today and end up having to pay it's bllls with IOU's

Unless you want to start turning away illegals at emergency rooms and letting them die on the street, then its much cheaper to address their problems BEFORE they get to the ER.

What I'm suggesting is that when you address issues that effect healthcare costs that are related to it, you bring down the costs of healthcare. To not address those issues and simply advocate blanket coverage for every american will never produce the desired result. In fact with our economy in terrible shape and the Govt. deep in debt, if these issues are not addressed healthcare coverage becomes an even larger debt load on the Govt. that will eventually effect the entire economy. As for turning away illegals, how about immigration reform that actually allows for a leaner path to citizenship for those people wish to become citizens and enforcing deportation laws? It's not a hard problem to solve it only takes ridding ourselves of the special interests involved in the matter much like the same special interests that have kept this country from producing it's own sources of energy for all these years.

 

[Meister]

Suuuuuuuure they do.

Of course, the questions and methodology of the purported poll aren't mentioned.

That is why every other Western democracy in the world has universal healthcare, because it is cheaper and better.

Only right wing Americans are too dumb to get it.

Let's see who really are the dumb ones, Chrissy. This first article is pro universal health.


Private clinics are spreading like bad weeds across the country, welcomed by a federal government that is content to look the other way while these for-profit ventures offer health care for a price.Last weekend, health coalitions, citizens’ groups and other organizations that support public health care confronted the federal government’s abandonment of the public health care system. People across the country raised a united voice to say that these private clinics continue to pose a real threat to the future of public health care in Canada.
It may seem easy to dismiss the clinics merely as service providers, filling a niche where people can pay money if they want to access surgeries, medical procedures and even family doctors. If people have the extra money, why shouldn’t they be able to pay for something as personal and essential as health care?
The fact is that Canada does not have enough trained doctors, surgeons, specialists, nurses or other health care providers. The professionals who practise in private clinics are spending their time away from the public system where there are arguably more people with greater needs – including the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill. Private clinics may be able to help some, but they are the advantaged few. Everyone else is left with even longer waiting times or without access to family doctors.
Private clinics ruining public health care

Here is another good read for you, Chrissy.

Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.
But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Tell us again just how much better universal healthcare is, Chrissy. I'm in the mood for a good laugh.

 

[Meister]

Ed Schultz is going to Canada to see if what you guys say about their healthcare is true.

If you ask 100 Canadians if they would prefer to have our healthcare or their healthcare, what percentage would say ours?

I think 1 in 10 if you are lucky would give up what they have and pay double for ours like we do.

I just called HP customer service, about my printer, and spoke to a woman in Toronto. She'd never give up her Canadian Health Care. She also said that the US wouldn't get it because of the insurance companies.

I'm convinced now.

There you have it...a lib goes for a one person poll.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Suuuuuuuure they do.

Of course, the questions and methodology of the purported poll aren't mentioned.

That is why every other Western democracy in the world has universal healthcare, because it is cheaper and better.

Only right wing Americans are too dumb to get it.

Let's see who really are the dumb ones, Chrissy. This first article is pro universal health.


Private clinics are spreading like bad weeds across the country, welcomed by a federal government that is content to look the other way while these for-profit ventures offer health care for a price.Last weekend, health coalitions, citizens’ groups and other organizations that support public health care confronted the federal government’s abandonment of the public health care system. People across the country raised a united voice to say that these private clinics continue to pose a real threat to the future of public health care in Canada.
It may seem easy to dismiss the clinics merely as service providers, filling a niche where people can pay money if they want to access surgeries, medical procedures and even family doctors. If people have the extra money, why shouldn’t they be able to pay for something as personal and essential as health care?
The fact is that Canada does not have enough trained doctors, surgeons, specialists, nurses or other health care providers. The professionals who practise in private clinics are spending their time away from the public system where there are arguably more people with greater needs – including the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill. Private clinics may be able to help some, but they are the advantaged few. Everyone else is left with even longer waiting times or without access to family doctors.
Private clinics ruining public health care

Here is another good read for you, Chrissy.

Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.
But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Tell us again just how much better universal healthcare is, Chrissy. I'm in the mood for a good laugh.

what do you think Chrissy is going to say?....bets...he brings up the one payer line....

 

[Bern80]

Why you posted specific anecdotes, if they don't mean anything.

Because those anecodtes are going to more prevalent under one system than the other

Pure speculation. Even if that were the case, specific anecdotes prove nothing.

No, they simply are examples of a systems flaws You're right. How very trivial.

You are assuming that they would be put off until they become serious.

Why wouldn't that happen? You would have to acknowledge that demand for medical services will go up. That's kind of the whole point, isn't it? With money out of the way physicians will treat on a need basis, just as you said they should. With a system that already makes people wait, where are you coming up with time for physicians to treat less urgent cases?

Oh? What are the differences, and please explain why that means it won't work here.

Other than the millions more people we have to deal with? France has more doctors per capita than we do for starters. We are one of the least healthy developed nations in the world for second.

Raising salaries. Funding more medical schools. Or do you not understand basic economics?

You libs need to get this one thing drilled through your skulls. SHOW ME THE MONEY. How much of your paycheck/life are you going to turn over to government so that you don't have worry about a damn thing? Own up and admit who you are. If government runs the system obviiously it is going to be up to them to somehow do the things you say need doing. Which means it's uiltimately gonna come out of your pocket.

 

[Meister]

That is why every other Western democracy in the world has universal healthcare, because it is cheaper and better.

Only right wing Americans are too dumb to get it.

Let's see who really are the dumb ones, Chrissy. This first article is pro universal health.


Private clinics are spreading like bad weeds across the country, welcomed by a federal government that is content to look the other way while these for-profit ventures offer health care for a price.Last weekend, health coalitions, citizens’ groups and other organizations that support public health care confronted the federal government’s abandonment of the public health care system. People across the country raised a united voice to say that these private clinics continue to pose a real threat to the future of public health care in Canada.
It may seem easy to dismiss the clinics merely as service providers, filling a niche where people can pay money if they want to access surgeries, medical procedures and even family doctors. If people have the extra money, why shouldn’t they be able to pay for something as personal and essential as health care?
The fact is that Canada does not have enough trained doctors, surgeons, specialists, nurses or other health care providers. The professionals who practise in private clinics are spending their time away from the public system where there are arguably more people with greater needs – including the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill. Private clinics may be able to help some, but they are the advantaged few. Everyone else is left with even longer waiting times or without access to family doctors.
Private clinics ruining public health care

Here is another good read for you, Chrissy.

Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.
But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Tell us again just how much better universal healthcare is, Chrissy. I'm in the mood for a good laugh.

what do you think Chrissy is going to say?....bets...he brings up the one payer line....

yeah he is just full of "One Liners", not really a lot of substance, but he is consistant