Poll: Most Doctors Favor Public

[KittenKoder]

Doctors have had a strangle hold on the US long enough.

Oh yeah Kitten, they strangle you every time you go to them when you are sick. It's the medical mal pracice insurance and the lack of tort reform by the democrats that has a strangle hold on them. Get freggin real here.

When you get fucked up by doctors who **** up three times in your life, but can't do a damned thing about it, then say that. The last time I was on government funded healthcare, guess what I was told when I tried to sue them?

 

[Ringel05]

Sorry! Don't mean to offend. I was just illustrating a point that neither of you read any part of the document I referenced. THAT is the reason his response (taken IN context), made no sense. IF you had read the document (or time permitting, at least opened and looked at it for a few minutes), then neither of you would have made the comments you did.

The article does NOT deal with a poll taken by doctors. It deals with a poll taken by Employees of major corporations and other institutions (patients), and was sponsored by those companies. Nearly all of these are conservative institutions, not liberally biased.

His comment, taken in light of this, is trying to suggest that these numbers represent the opinions of doctors (who obviously can't wait to submit another "padded" claim), which suggests that neither of you read any part of it, and instead of presenting a valid point of view, you read the thread title, assumed I was talking about doctors, and made emotionally charged irrelevant statements. THAT, I believe, was one of the main points of my original post.

Anyway, sorry if I offended either of you. My intent was truly to present another point of view. That is all. I do have to admit, I was hoping for a more meaningful response. As for the comment about 5th grade, at least I read it "slowly"....

-sensored

Commonsensored, the people that you deal with here are, for the most part, not interested in a real conversation concerning health care. They only wish that their partisan viewpoint be noted, and if you show where that viewpoint is flawed, they reply with personal insults and scatalogical referances to your sexual preferances.

Old Rocks, I don't know how you attributed that quote by CommonSensor to me but I did not post it.

 

[Ringel05]

Based on your initial response to my post you actually think you understood what I meant??!! Are you dyslexic or just plain ignorant? Yes that was my point. I'm offering free reading lessons through the Evylin Wood Head Sped Redding School of Compension, you surely could use it. After that we can move on to fifth grade reading comprehension.

Sorry! Don't mean to offend. I was just illustrating a point that neither of you read any part of the document I referenced. THAT is the reason his response (taken IN context), made no sense. IF you had read the document (or time permitting, at least opened and looked at it for a few minutes), then neither of you would have made the comments you did.

The article does NOT deal with a poll taken by doctors. It deals with a poll taken by Employees of major corporations and other institutions (patients), and was sponsored by those companies. Nearly all of these are conservative institutions, not liberally biased.

His comment, taken in light of this, is trying to suggest that these numbers represent the opinions of doctors (who obviously can't wait to submit another "padded" claim), which suggests that neither of you read any part of it, and instead of presenting a valid point of view, you read the thread title, assumed I was talking about doctors, and made emotionally charged irrelevant statements. THAT, I believe, was one of the main points of my original post.

Anyway, sorry if I offended either of you. My intent was truly to present another point of view. That is all. I do have to admit, I was hoping for a more meaningful response. As for the comment about 5th grade, at least I read it "slowly"....

-sensored

Yes you did mean to offend:

"You see?!!! Already a good example of the "uneducated" using idiotic rhetoric instead of thoughtfully considering the issue... The answer to your question is simple. 0 "zero"....why? Because DOCTORS submit claims to medicare and medicaid, patients do not."

No I didn't read the article, I was responding to the thread title you wrote which stated doctors prefered the public option, not employees, insurance companies, etc. A little oops on you part maybe??

 

[Meister]

The crux of this is that most doctors do not want the Obamacare, by a margin of 2 out of 3. Not like what has been stated previouisly from the AMA. Only around 26% of doctors are a member of that group, and I'm almost positive not all of them are on board with a healthcare overhaul.
Your answer is let them quit???? Your proving just what a nut you are Old Rocks. We need all the doctors we can get when the right healthcare reform get passed.

First, please post some references for the numbers you cite. Then, explain to me how the fact that only 26% of doctors being members of the AMA means that the other 74% are either for or against it? Actually, the 26% represents a ratio and if applied to the whole, would be multiplied by approx. 4 to get the real picture.

Lastly, doctors are quitting in alarming numbers RIGHT NOW. Doctors are not the primary reason healthcare is so expensive. The primary reason is a profit approach without serious competition (and outright price-fixing in pharmaceuticals) leaves us without adequate market control (we the people). Since we don't have a choice (not to) use healthcare.

The best mechanism (my opinion) suggested to date for creating competition and therefore controlling costs, is to have a public option. This is NOT big government taking over. This is government created by "we the people" doing whatever "we the people" want them to. If they don't, we constitutionally are required to remove them. So, if "we the people" decide we want the government to participate in things that make our lives better, we can make that choice. Personally, I'd much rather contribute my tax dollars to things that do good for our society, like health, education, and infrastructure, science, etc., and loathe the fact that we're spending so much on unnecessary wars (including Afghanistan).

In the end though, this healthcare "season" is almost over. Even if something does pass, it will not solve the real issues (again my opinion).

The reference you want from me was stated with a reference from House. But, seeing that you won't go back and look here ya go....
Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

I'm for healthcare refor....a reasonable one that won't bankrupt us. The government has shown it can't keep any kind of healthcare within budget, and this will dwarf any problem we had with Medicare, and it's budget.
I have no idea what your equation is all about with the doctors being for or against. The article keeps it pretty simple and so should you.

 

[CommonSensor]

Yes you did mean to offend:

"You see?!!! Already a good example of the "uneducated" using idiotic rhetoric instead of thoughtfully considering the issue... The answer to your question is simple. 0 "zero"....why? Because DOCTORS submit claims to medicare and medicaid, patients do not."

No I didn't read the article, I was responding to the thread title you wrote which stated doctors prefered the public option, not employees, insurance companies, etc. A little oops on you part maybe??

First, I really didn't mean to offend, and for that I'm sorry. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

I did not write the thread title. The first post I made in this thread was the one you responded to, so not an ooops by me.

-sensored

 

[auditor0007]

I wonder how many of the respondents to the poll have been padding Medicare/Medicaid claims for decades and see this as just another "opportunity"?

Do you honestly believe that a doctor who pads Medicare/Medicaid claims doesn't also pad insurance company claims? This argument goes into the circular file.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

NPR? I bet the find that most PBS stations favpr public funding of, uh, the PBS.

 

[Ringel05]

Yes you did mean to offend:

"You see?!!! Already a good example of the "uneducated" using idiotic rhetoric instead of thoughtfully considering the issue... The answer to your question is simple. 0 "zero"....why? Because DOCTORS submit claims to medicare and medicaid, patients do not."

No I didn't read the article, I was responding to the thread title you wrote which stated doctors prefered the public option, not employees, insurance companies, etc. A little oops on you part maybe??

First, I really didn't mean to offend, and for that I'm sorry. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

I did not write the thread title. The first post I made in this thread was the one you responded to, so not an ooops by me.

-sensored

My bad, you're right. Occasionally the brain doesn't function to well at 2am, hell sometimes it doesn't function all day!
BTW, welcome to USMB!

 

[CommonSensor]

I posted that article earlier...

I found it surfing the internet instead of listening to Foreman and 13 drone on about some patient...

I wouldn't put too much faith in an article written and presented by "Investors.com". It has an obvious (self-interest) bias. Look for more independently produced info. That is, of course, unless you were just looking for data that supports your existing point of view right or wrong. If so, you found it! congrats...

The narrative of the article forms an opinion based on answers to questions we aren't shown. So we have no way of knowing "which plan" (for example) they're referring to. There are many ideas on the table, but no "plan" that I know of until just the past couple of days. Typical "spin" in my opinion.

-s

 

[Ringel05]

I wonder how many of the respondents to the poll have been padding Medicare/Medicaid claims for decades and see this as just another "opportunity"?

Do you honestly believe that a doctor who pads Medicare/Medicaid claims doesn't also pad insurance company claims? This argument goes into the circular file.

Some people are waaaaaay to serious.

 

[auditor0007]

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option : NPR

When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September.

Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.

They would????????????????? 45% of doctors said they would quit or retire should his plan go through. Now, think about this, we are going to add app 30 million to the government insurance and 45% of our doctors quit or retire. I think there will be massive rationing, don't you?

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

I guess all those doctors will then become lawyers, lol. This is a farce to believe more than a handful would stop practicing medicine. More fear mongering. And as far as adding another 30 million people, we are constantly told that everyone gets treated in the US under our current system. So how would we be adding people if they already are receiving all the healthcare they need?

There are reasons to believe that this plan may not work. The problem is that most of you use arguments that don't make sense or contradict what you have said in the past, so your arguments don't hold up.

 

[Meister]

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option : NPR

They would????????????????? 45% of doctors said they would quit or retire should his plan go through. Now, think about this, we are going to add app 30 million to the government insurance and 45% of our doctors quit or retire. I think there will be massive rationing, don't you?

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

I guess all those doctors will then become lawyers, lol. This is a farce to believe more than a handful would stop practicing medicine. More fear mongering. And as far as adding another 30 million people, we are constantly told that everyone gets treated in the US under our current system. So how would we be adding people if they already are receiving all the healthcare they need?

There are reasons to believe that this plan may not work. The problem is that most of you use arguments that don't make sense or contradict what you have said in the past, so your arguments don't hold up.

My arguement of funding, fraud and waste are very valid points, that no one really wants to address, and by that I mean the politicians.

 

[CommonSensor]

My arguement of funding, fraud and waste are very valid points, that no one really wants to address, and by that I mean the politicians.

These ARE valid points. But they don't represent a reason NOT to reform the system. There is far more "waste" in the private system we now have. That's primarily driven by an insurance industry that needs to justify it's existence by maintaining the status quo instead of modernizing itself. There is no financial incentive for them to do so, when they can just raise the rates instead.

As for fraud, are you talking about "fraudulent claims" or "political corruption"? Political corruption is a big problem, but could be drastically reduced if we remove some of the incentive. By that I mean take away the "personification" of corporations. Take away their power to lobby and support government as a "seperate entity". It's fine if all the employees of a company want to support issues, but treating business itself as a participant will always lead to this type of corruption.

The #1 reason medicare and medicaid are inefficient isn't because of the system itself, but the inability to negotiate for products and services. I just love the way we "shun" protectionism, promote a global free (choke choke) market, and then turn around and price-fix by not allowing the gov. to negotiate? Free trade such as making it illegal to buy medications from wherever we chose? Wake up America. Corporate society is upon us, and guess what? Unlike our ability to "elect" our government, we have no control in that arena.

-sensored

 

[Dr.House]

I posted that article earlier...

I found it surfing the internet instead of listening to Foreman and 13 drone on about some patient...

I wouldn't put too much faith in an article written and presented by "Investors.com". It has an obvious (self-interest) bias. Look for more independently produced info. That is, of course, unless you were just looking for data that supports your existing point of view right or wrong. If so, you found it! congrats...

The article was chock full of facts and data... Investors is a reputable source...

The narrative of the article forms an opinion based on answers to questions we aren't shown. So we have no way of knowing "which plan" (for example) they're referring to. There are many ideas on the table, but no "plan" that I know of until just the past couple of days. Typical "spin" in my opinion.

-s

The questions are right there in the graphic... Did you even read it?

 

[Meister]

My arguement of funding, fraud and waste are very valid points, that no one really wants to address, and by that I mean the politicians.

These ARE valid points. But they don't represent a reason NOT to reform the system. There is far more "waste" in the private system we now have. That's primarily driven by an insurance industry that needs to justify it's existence by maintaining the status quo instead of modernizing itself. There is no financial incentive for them to do so, when they can just raise the rates instead.

As for fraud, are you talking about "fraudulent claims" or "political corruption"? Political corruption is a big problem, but could be drastically reduced if we remove some of the incentive. By that I mean take away the "personification" of corporations. Take away their power to lobby and support government as a "seperate entity". It's fine if all the employees of a company want to support issues, but treating business itself as a participant will always lead to this type of corruption.

The #1 reason medicare and medicaid are inefficient isn't because of the system itself, but the inability to negotiate for products and services. I just love the way we "shun" protectionism, promote a global free (choke choke) market, and then turn around and price-fix by not allowing the gov. to negotiate? Free trade such as making it illegal to buy medications from wherever we chose? Wake up America. Corporate society is upon us, and guess what? Unlike our ability to "elect" our government, we have no control in that arena.

-sensored

They ARE the reasons not to reform healthcare to a government system. What world are you living in? Please give a source to your claim of "far more waste" in the private system. Our tax dollars will go to waste, and fraud, along with overages, and it still won't be enough. It seems that the CBO's numbers don't even carry any weight with you.
Fraudulent claims is what I'm talking about...on a massive scale that the government would not be able to control. It has shown this with Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. You put way more faith in our government's abilities to stem the bleeding. You may go on hope and faith, but I'm a realist.
It seems the government has taken a lot of free market from the private insurers. They need to open up the borders to them. The government can set mandates to the private industry to resolve the problems now facing the issues. Tort reform would be a great place to start....but I know it's the lawyers that are politicians...that might be a conflict of interest don't you think?
The government isn't the answer, as you think...but it is a component to the solution.

 

[Neser Boha]

Alrighty. NPR is a public organization, Investors is obviously more of a free-market oriented source. Each source - as could be easily predicted - makes different conclusions. How about somebody finds a third - and more 'unbiased' source? So far, it is a tie. I, for one, would like Xotoxi's input - he's a doctor after all

 

[Jay Canuck]

"How come you don't use it? You don't have it.
How come you don't have it?" Video
-- CNBC genius Maria Bartiromo, asking [SIZE=+1]45[/SIZE] year old
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), why he isn't on
Medicare if he thinks its so great,

 

[CommonSensor]

I posted that article earlier...

I found it surfing the internet instead of listening to Foreman and 13 drone on about some patient...

I wouldn't put too much faith in an article written and presented by "Investors.com". It has an obvious (self-interest) bias. Look for more independently produced info. That is, of course, unless you were just looking for data that supports your existing point of view right or wrong. If so, you found it! congrats...

The article was chock full of facts and data... Investors is a reputable source...

The narrative of the article forms an opinion based on answers to questions we aren't shown. So we have no way of knowing "which plan" (for example) they're referring to. There are many ideas on the table, but no "plan" that I know of until just the past couple of days. Typical "spin" in my opinion.

-s

The questions are right there in the graphic... Did you even read it?

Yes, I read it, but didn't look at the graphic. Reading the questions confirms exactly what I thought. They are "leading" questions, designed to elicit specific responses. First of all, there WAS NO PLAN at the time this survey was taken. So asking them if they support it is meaningless. There were many proposed ideas, but no plan. Secondly, pointedly asking them if they'll consider retirement is very leading.

Example:
If I asked you which color is the "warmest" color, and you say blue. And then I ask 1000 people, I will get a fairly accurate idea of how many of them think blue is the warmest. However, if I ask if blue is the warmest color, I will get a skewed result, because i've already suggested the color blue. In the same way, asking doctors specifically if they'll consider early retirement will give a much higher affirmative response.

I never said Investors wasn't reputable. I said they're biased. Their opposition to reforming healthcare is obvious in light of their corporate allegiances. The way they conducted the survey supports that.

-sensored

 

[Dr.House]

I wouldn't put too much faith in an article written and presented by "Investors.com". It has an obvious (self-interest) bias. Look for more independently produced info. That is, of course, unless you were just looking for data that supports your existing point of view right or wrong. If so, you found it! congrats...

The article was chock full of facts and data... Investors is a reputable source...

The narrative of the article forms an opinion based on answers to questions we aren't shown. So we have no way of knowing "which plan" (for example) they're referring to. There are many ideas on the table, but no "plan" that I know of until just the past couple of days. Typical "spin" in my opinion.

-s

The questions are right there in the graphic... Did you even read it?

Yes, I read it, but didn't look at the graphic. Reading the questions confirms exactly what I thought. They are "leading" questions, designed to elicit specific responses. First of all, there WAS NO PLAN at the time this survey was taken. So asking them if they support it is meaningless. There were many proposed ideas, but no plan. Secondly, pointedly asking them if they'll consider retirement is very leading.

Example:
If I asked you which color is the "warmest" color, and you say blue. And then I ask 1000 people, I will get a fairly accurate idea of how many of them think blue is the warmest. However, if I ask if blue is the warmest color, I will get a skewed result, because i've already suggested the color blue. In the same way, asking doctors specifically if they'll consider early retirement will give a much higher affirmative response.

I never said Investors wasn't reputable. I said they're biased. Their opposition to reforming healthcare is obvious in light of their corporate allegiances. The way they conducted the survey supports that.

-sensored

I disagree with your statement that the questions were leading... They are quite valid, IMHO, and show what doctors who are not necessarily part of the AMA are thinking about gubmint run healthcare...

There was a plan - a rather lengthy one - at the time of the poll which was conducted over th past 2 weks... There was no bill, but there was a plan... I'm surprised you missed it... Review the forums for lengthy discussions on the topic if you need to...

 

[CommonSensor]

They ARE the reasons not to reform healthcare to a government system. What world are you living in? Please give a source to your claim of "far more waste" in the private system. Our tax dollars will go to waste, and fraud, along with overages, and it still won't be enough. It seems that the CBO's numbers don't even carry any weight with you.
Fraudulent claims is what I'm talking about...on a massive scale that the government would not be able to control. It has shown this with Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. You put way more faith in our government's abilities to stem the bleeding. You may go on hope and faith, but I'm a realist.
It seems the government has taken a lot of free market from the private insurers. They need to open up the borders to them. The government can set mandates to the private industry to resolve the problems now facing the issues. Tort reform would be a great place to start....but I know it's the lawyers that are politicians...that might be a conflict of interest don't you think?
The government isn't the answer, as you think...but it is a component to the solution.

Here is a very good research article, even though it's a study from 2003. Sorry, but I don't have rights to post a url yet (too new), so i've removed the www from the beginning:

citizen.org/hrg/healthcare/articles.cfm?ID=10299

a quote from the above:

In essence, National Health Insurance would pay for itself through administrative savings. No other reform can slash administrative costs. Senator Kerry, and some others who have proposed patchwork reforms, assert that they could cut administration through computerization. Such assertions are not credible. Most health insurance claims are already computerized. Extensive research demonstrates that as long as private insurance firms are in, administrative costs are high.

While Republicans are trying gut Medicare with proposals for privatization, and offering a pitifully inadequate drug benefit, our health care system is rapidly failing. Unfortunately, the Democratic presidential contenders – except for Dennis Kucinich - are pushing reforms that are tired retreads of policies that have already failed. They have no hope of covering the uninsured, but are sure to protect insurance companies.

Now I'm not necessarily for a single-payor program. I think a private/public option program would work, but I otherwise agree with the findings.

I actually have several other references if you'd like, but this one is very good.

-sensored