The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider

And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option.

Monte wrote:

And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option.

/sigh

Of the options given to them, which only included options to expand coverage, they favored a mixed system.

So, again, not only does the survey you cited (from a reputable source, admittedly) not say what you seem to still think that it does, it does not support the conclusion you just wrote.

DFK! wrote:

Monte wrote:

And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option.

I grow weary of you misinterpreting that study. That study had three clear options - Public Option, Status Quo (or near abouts), and Single Payer. An overwhelming majority supported the Public option and Single Payer. Please stop being disingenuous about the study. Your semantic twist is just not playing.

DFK! wrote:

Monte wrote:

And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option.

You're wrong, regardless of what you're 'weary' about. And now you're implying I'm misleading people intentionally, since that's what disingenuous means. Therefore, I'll thank you to 1) stop calling me a liar, 2) stop re-wording the study to be what you want it to be (considering not a single one of those terms was used by the NEJM) and 3) to read the study over and over again until you understand that "not expanding coverage" was not listed as an option, because it wasn't.

DFK! wrote:

You make a pretty big leap from calling your post disingenuous to calling you a liar, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I did not re word the study intentionally, I simply did not cut and paste. Just because "not expanding coverage" was not an option does not invalidate the thousands of doctors that chose the public option so clearly.

Synonyms:
artful, crooked, cunning, deceitful, designing, dishonest, duplicitous, false, feigned, foxy, guileful, indirect, insidious, mendacious, oblique, shifty, sly, tricky, two-faced, uncandid, underhanded, unfair, unfrank, wily

Even if we pull it at the margins, it still shows overwhelming support for a public option. No, there isn't much support for single payer. But there is a ton of support for a public insurance option.

Your argument relies on semantic dancing to make it's point. And I think your argument fails to make a compelling point as a result. If you look into the internals of that study, I think you will find that my take on it is correct...

... and that if they posed the question you think was missing, the numbers would not change much, if at all.

So fine, you didn't call me a liar, just underhanded and deceitful. I'll thank you to stop it.

2) Yes, the words being different and the option not being presented entirely invalidates the claim you're attempting to make. You simply have not grasped the study appropriately. Hell, write the NEJM and ask them if it means what you think.

Nope, it sure doesn't. Of the choices given it demonstrates support for a combined mix of private and public choices, including a "public option" "like Medicare."

No, I wouldn't, because you are wrong.

This isn't semantics nor opinion. You are simply, clearly, and flat-out wrong.

What information do you base that upon? Do you have another study using the exact same physicians asking the exact same questions? That would be what you'd need to logically state that opinion.

Now, you can state it on shear personal belief of course, but it won't be grounded in anything but your "gut."

Legally speaking, is it even constitutional to require insurance for everyone, even against their will?

Uncle Fester wrote:

Legally speaking, is it even constitutional to require insurance for everyone, even against their will?

They already do it to automobile owners.

I don't disagree with you on that. However, the choices given are the choices that are on the table right now in Congress, and so are the only reasonable ones to ask about. *something* is going to be done, and of the proposed legislative possibilities, they overwhelmingly chose the combination of a public and private insurance market.

Uncle Fester wrote:

Legally speaking, is it even constitutional to require insurance for everyone, even against their will?

They already do it to automobile owners.

Author:	Nitefox [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:43 am ]
Post subject:	45% Of Doctors Would Consider
Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 9690110379 Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found. The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul. It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost. The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series. Major findings included: • Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul. It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform." Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan." The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul. • Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind. More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting. • More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better." This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time. The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better. IBD/TIPP's finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K. Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife. In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth. From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of 25,700 doctors. Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck. The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care. Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession. The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations. Adding millions of patients to physicians' caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed. "It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press. Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980. The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory. Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn't likely to change much. On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem. Its 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that: • The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in short supply for a fourth straight year. • The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded. • Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply. • Recruitment and retention of physicians remains difficult, especially at community hospitals and with primary care. A key reason for the doctor shortages, according to the study, is a "lingering poor practice environment in the state." In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what's being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn't worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole. "Health spending in Massachusetts is higher than the United States on average and is growing at a faster rate," according to a recent report from the Urban Institute. Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage. This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand. In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service. "A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland" because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted. British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends. Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country's national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S. --- Will be fun to watch The Chosen one fulfill his brib...er, promise when the number of doctors shrinks by almost half. As for the bolded part, I mean come on. We have a working example right here in the US in very liberal MA and The Chosen One still thinks he can make it work without any kind of increase or drop in service? Really?

Author:	Monte [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:47 am ]
Post subject:
If they are referring to the Baucus plan, that shouldn't surprise anyone. The Baucus plan would draw ire from the overwhelming majority of doctors that support a public option.

Author:	Müs [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 am ]
Post subject:
After reading the article, it seems that its talking about any government plan.

Author:	Monte [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:
Again, it looks like they are in opposition to the Massachusetts plan, which specifically did not include a public option, and wound up increasing costs. The public option is the key to all of this. If it winds up not existing in the final iteration of the bill, then congress and the president have failed, and our costs will go up.

Author:	Müs [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:
No, the study references the "Massachusetts plan" the doctors mentioned in the report appear to be in opposition to any expansion plan.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

45% Of Doctors Would Consider https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=209	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Screeling [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Good stuff.

Author:	NephyrS [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Most doctors I know oppose a public option moreso than any other part of the healthcare plan, simply because medicare has been such a nightmare to deal with compared to any other insurance company. Most feel like they would end up being essentially government employees, with pay adjusted by the government and not the market, and with crippling oversight preventing them from doing what they feel is best for their patients. Of course, that's just the physicians I know, most of them are rural family practice. The situation might be different in some high end clinics.

Author:	Ladas [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:
I just report about the increasing percentage of doctors that are dropping Medicare from their practice because of the problems.

Author:	NephyrS [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:
This, too. One doctor I know won't take it anymore- but if you are uninsured, he knocks 30% off of the bill, and he only works til 2pm so he can work every afternoon and evening at a 'cost' healthcare clinic for the low income working population. He says he would prefer to actually volunteer with the time and be able to help people instead of the quasi-help that medicare offers, with the accompanying headache. I know several local physicians that will knock off large chunks of the bill if you are uninsured, to help out those that need it.

Author:	Monte [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:
And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option.

Author:	DFK! [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option. /sigh Of the options given to them, which only included options to expand coverage, they favored a mixed system. So, again, not only does the survey you cited (from a reputable source, admittedly) not say what you seem to still think that it does, it does not support the conclusion you just wrote.

Author:	Monte [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
DFK! wrote: Monte wrote: And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option. /sigh Of the options given to them, which only included options to expand coverage, they favored a mixed system. So, again, not only does the survey you cited (from a reputable source, admittedly) not say what you seem to still think that it does, it does not support the conclusion you just wrote. I grow weary of you misinterpreting that study. That study had three clear options - Public Option, Status Quo (or near abouts), and Single Payer. An overwhelming majority supported the Public option and Single Payer. Please stop being disingenuous about the study. Your semantic twist is just not playing.

Author:	NephyrS [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:
What DFK said. I listened to an interview with the head of the AMA on NPR not too long ago- he said that they had chosen to endorse the bill, not because they thought it should go through, but that continued discussion of the problems was needed. This was not the current bill, but was a few versions back. He definitely was not happy about a public option, and instead favored reforms of private insurance.

Author:	DFK! [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: DFK! wrote: Monte wrote: And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option. /sigh Of the options given to them, which only included options to expand coverage, they favored a mixed system. So, again, not only does the survey you cited (from a reputable source, admittedly) not say what you seem to still think that it does, it does not support the conclusion you just wrote. I grow weary of you misinterpreting that study. That study had three clear options - Public Option, Status Quo (or near abouts), and Single Payer. An overwhelming majority supported the Public option and Single Payer. Please stop being disingenuous about the study. Your semantic twist is just not playing. You're wrong, regardless of what you're 'weary' about. And now you're implying I'm misleading people intentionally, since that's what disingenuous means. Therefore, I'll thank you to 1) stop calling me a liar, 2) stop re-wording the study to be what you want it to be (considering not a single one of those terms was used by the NEJM) and 3) to read the study over and over again until you understand that "not expanding coverage" was not listed as an option, because it wasn't.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Müs [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: DFK! wrote: Monte wrote: And yet, I recently posted a survey of over 6000 doctors that clearly endorsed a public insurance option. /sigh Of the options given to them, which only included options to expand coverage, they favored a mixed system. So, again, not only does the survey you cited (from a reputable source, admittedly) not say what you seem to still think that it does, it does not support the conclusion you just wrote. I grow weary of you misinterpreting that study. That study had three clear options - Public Option, Status Quo (or near abouts), and Single Payer. An overwhelming majority supported the Public option and Single Payer. Please stop being disingenuous about the study. Your semantic twist is just not playing. I read the questions that were part of the study. I do believe that you are the one that is not interpreting them correctly. I think I even broke the questions out so they were easier to parse, and therefore, comprehend. Furthermore, I think DFK works in the medical industry, so I'm going to have to give his posts a little bit more credibility in these matters.

Author:	Monte [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
DFK! wrote: You're wrong, regardless of what you're 'weary' about. And now you're implying I'm misleading people intentionally, since that's what disingenuous means. Therefore, I'll thank you to 1) stop calling me a liar, 2) stop re-wording the study to be what you want it to be (considering not a single one of those terms was used by the NEJM) and 3) to read the study over and over again until you understand that "not expanding coverage" was not listed as an option, because it wasn't. You make a pretty big leap from calling your post disingenuous to calling you a liar, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I did not re word the study intentionally, I simply did not cut and paste. Just because "not expanding coverage" was not an option does not invalidate the thousands of doctors that chose the public option so clearly. Even if we pull it at the margins, it still shows overwhelming support for a public option. No, there isn't much support for single payer. But there is a ton of support for a public insurance option. Your argument relies on semantic dancing to make it's point. And I think your argument fails to make a compelling point as a result. If you look into the internals of that study, I think you will find that my take on it is correct, and that if they posed the question you think was missing, the numbers would not change much, if at all.

Author:	DFK! [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: DFK! wrote: You're wrong, regardless of what you're 'weary' about. And now you're implying I'm misleading people intentionally, since that's what disingenuous means. Therefore, I'll thank you to 1) stop calling me a liar, 2) stop re-wording the study to be what you want it to be (considering not a single one of those terms was used by the NEJM) and 3) to read the study over and over again until you understand that "not expanding coverage" was not listed as an option, because it wasn't. You make a pretty big leap from calling your post disingenuous to calling you a liar, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I did not re word the study intentionally, I simply did not cut and paste. Just because "not expanding coverage" was not an option does not invalidate the thousands of doctors that chose the public option so clearly. 1) Synonyms for disingenuous are: Thesaurus.com wrote: Synonyms: artful, crooked, cunning, deceitful, designing, dishonest, duplicitous, false, feigned, foxy, guileful, indirect, insidious, mendacious, oblique, shifty, sly, tricky, two-faced, uncandid, underhanded, unfair, unfrank, wily So fine, you didn't call me a liar, just underhanded and deceitful. I'll thank you to stop it. 2) Yes, the words being different and the option not being presented entirely invalidates the claim you're attempting to make. You simply have not grasped the study appropriately. Hell, write the NEJM and ask them if it means what you think. Monty wrote: Even if we pull it at the margins, it still shows overwhelming support for a public option. No, there isn't much support for single payer. But there is a ton of support for a public insurance option. Nope, it sure doesn't. Of the choices given it demonstrates support for a combined mix of private and public choices, including a "public option" "like Medicare." Monty wrote: Your argument relies on semantic dancing to make it's point. And I think your argument fails to make a compelling point as a result. If you look into the internals of that study, I think you will find that my take on it is correct... No, I wouldn't, because you are wrong. This isn't semantics nor opinion. You are simply, clearly, and flat-out wrong. Monty wrote: ... and that if they posed the question you think was missing, the numbers would not change much, if at all. What information do you base that upon? Do you have another study using the exact same physicians asking the exact same questions? That would be what you'd need to logically state that opinion. Now, you can state it on shear personal belief of course, but it won't be grounded in anything but your "gut."

Author:	Monte [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
DFK! wrote: So fine, you didn't call me a liar, just underhanded and deceitful. I'll thank you to stop it. Actually, artful is a much better descriptor. I did not intend to use those rather nasty descriptors. I did think your dance in that argument was artful. Quote: 2) Yes, the words being different and the option not being presented entirely invalidates the claim you're attempting to make. You simply have not grasped the study appropriately. Hell, write the NEJM and ask them if it means what you think. I'm sorry, but I think that's kind of silly. Do you honestly believe the results of the survey would be significantly different if your particular arbitrary question was included? Quote: Nope, it sure doesn't. Of the choices given it demonstrates support for a combined mix of private and public choices, including a "public option" "like Medicare." I don't disagree with you on that. However, the choices given are the choices that are on the table right now in Congress, and so are the only reasonable ones to ask about. something is going to be done, and of the proposed legislative possibilities, they overwhelmingly chose the combination of a public and private insurance market. Quote: No, I wouldn't, because you are wrong. I just want to quote this. It's probably the most illogical thing you've said so far in the debate. Quote: This isn't semantics nor opinion. You are simply, clearly, and flat-out wrong. Simply saying I'm wrong does not, in fact, make me wrong. Quote: What information do you base that upon? Do you have another study using the exact same physicians asking the exact same questions? That would be what you'd need to logically state that opinion. What information leads you to believe that it would change the outcome significantly? Quote: Now, you can state it on shear personal belief of course, but it won't be grounded in anything but your "gut." Indeed. Which is really what you are doing right now. You are saying that because they did not include an arbitrary question that you constructed, that the findings are somehow invalid. That's just plain silly. They don't need to include your question in order to have valid findings. Their questions related to every possibility currently before congress, and they got some rather telling results. Those results don't simply vanish because they did not ask a question in exactly the way you wanted them to.

Author:	DFK! [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:06 am ]
Post subject:
Dude, I'm sorry but you're so far in left field in regards to not interpreting that thing correctly that I don't believe I can continue this discussion. Especially considering you feel that 1) we can only talk about the options on the table (open and civil discourse on solutions indeed, provided they're your solutions) and 2) expansion of coverage v. nonexpansion of coverage is an "arbitrary" difference with no impact. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong when I'm done with your 'ad nauseum' after this post.

Author:	Uncle Fester [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:08 am ]
Post subject:
Legally speaking, is it even constitutional to require insurance for everyone, even against their will?

Author:	Monte [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:21 am ]
Post subject:
That's an excellent question. I honestly don't know. I see the practicality of it, and we certainly require it of drivers, but I don't know about the mandate's constitutionality. I think it's clearly constitutional for the government to provide health insurance to it's citizens. That question was asked and answered with medicare and medicaid, and both of those programs have withstood challenges in the Supreme Court. But the mandate is a separate question.

Author:	darksiege [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Uncle Fester wrote: Legally speaking, is it even constitutional to require insurance for everyone, even against their will? They already do it to automobile owners.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
darksiege wrote: Uncle Fester wrote: Legally speaking, is it even constitutional to require insurance for everyone, even against their will? They already do it to automobile owners. The states do that. Quote: I don't disagree with you on that. However, the choices given are the choices that are on the table right now in Congress, and so are the only reasonable ones to ask about. something is going to be done, and of the proposed legislative possibilities, they overwhelmingly chose the combination of a public and private insurance market. That only proves the invalidity of the poll you posted. Just because these are the options in Congress does not mean any of them should be passed or that most people, even most doctors, want any of them. All this poll establishes is that if there has to be public healthcare then most doctors want as little as possible. "Something is going to be done" only proves that Congress is following its own liberal agenda as opposed to actually listening to the public or doctors. If the debate were honest "Do nothing" and "eliminate public healthcare that exists already" would be options.

Author:	Khross [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 45% Of Doctors Would Consider
Monte: I am sure there are a narrow set of parameters under which Khrosses overwhelmingly support a public option. Those parameters do not mean Khrosses always support a public option.

Author:	Ladas [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
darksiege wrote: Uncle Fester wrote: Legally speaking, is it even constitutional to require insurance for everyone, even against their will? They already do it to automobile owners. The states require automobile insurance to operators of specific types of vehicles if those vehicles are going to be used on public roads. There is not insurance requirement for some groups of vehicles (bikes, mopeds, etc) and there is no requirement for insurance if that vehicle will not be operated on public roads. Whats more, the only mandatory insurance is to cover damages you cause to someone else via your actions, not to cover yourself or your car (mandatory for the state compliance, most lenders if you borrow money to buy a new car require higher levels of insurance to protect the investment). It is a very bad and inaccurate comparison to say because auto insurance is required a precedent has been set for health insurance.