US doctors support universal health care - survey

[WhiteTara]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

[Mika]

1. Including me.

I wasn't surveyed.

I do what I can.


-

[Skittles]

3. you're awesome, Mika

everyone who truly cares wants this, I believe

[Mika]

45. Thanks. Its ripping my guts out.

The needs are ever increasing. People are suffering. This gives me more opportunity to do more charity work. Thankfully I have laboratory associates who feel the same way. Bless them. Sometimes the stress of the situation that is developing is overwhelming - enough to grind-down even the most dedicated health care professionals. I worked very hard to develop a high end dental practice, but now I am doing more and more work for the destitute. I hope that DUers understand that not all of us are ruthless & rich mo-fo's. I am making less money every year, but I'm more rewarded by the sincere gratitude of those I help. Still, it rips my guts out to see people hurting so.

We really need UHC.


:hug:

[bobbolink]

56. BUT, the difference is, you're working for UHC. This article is talking about "insurance"

World of difference.

AND, thank you so much for what you're doing.

I can't get to a dentist, yet I hear them criticizing me in my head, that I'm not "taking care of my teeth". Well, when you don't have the money, there are no options.

I've resigned myself to losing all my teeth.

After years of taking very good care of myself.

And, getting the blame on top of it.

Such is life in the US.

[Mika]

138. I know.

I don't want to subsidize insurance companies.

We need nationalized single payer UHC.

-

Where are you located?

[bobbolink]

57. stooooooooooopid dupes

:-/

[harun]

41. Cool

:yourock:

[kestrel91316]

2. Has Cheney said, "So?" yet??

[annabanana]

4. I heard this tasy tidbit from:

http://www.pnhp.org/

An excellent organization

[GoddessOfGuinness]

33. Wow!

And it's even written so people like me can understand it! :thumbsup:

[Donnachaidh]

96. insurance is NOT tasty for those who have been deemed *uninsurable*

Universal health CARE is the only way to cover everyone. ESPECIALLY the ones who cannot afford insurance or are labeled *uninsurable lepers*.

[Sgent]

127. funny

because most of Europe uses private insurance to provide universal health care.

The issue of "uninsurable" people is easily solved via regulation -- requiring insurance companies to issue all policies to all comers at the same price.

[Fovea]

146. The key is regulation

and America seems to be allergic to it.
I wonder if we are more allergic to the depression unregulated business is driving us into?

[FloridaJudy]

5. That's because they've seen

Firsthand how the insurance companies treat both doctors and patients, and they're fed up with it. At least the ones who aren't too burnt-out, exhausted or greedy are. As an Advanced Practice RN, I've been there, and it's like watching "Sicko" over and over again, every working day.

(edited to add: fifth rec!)

[Lugnut]

10. Exactly!

I resent having my doctor's orders challenged by my insurance company. I'm sure he is just as resentful as I am. I'm grateful to have a physician who is willing to deal with the nonsense.

[AllyCat]

32. And how does a national "health insurance" plan change

the fact that "insurance" is involved? They are still "for-profit" and will make sure nothing cuts into their profits. I don't believe anything other than universal, single-payer will work (gasp! that's socialized medicine!)

[bobbolink]

58. Exactly. About like the national drug plan saved everyone.

:crazy:

[Journeyman]

6. K&R. . .

for the late crowd. . .

[bronxiteforever]

7. Kick & R

[bluerum]

8. Does anyone know why most employers would not be in favor of a NHI program?

No more worries about insuring employees. Freeing up HR staff and billions of dollars for payroll, profit and fun.

The only companies that I could see opposing a NHI program are the insurance companies.

Imagine that.

[WhiteTara]

15. there is always a mention of participation

and employers are REALLY gun shy about putting up.

[eridani]

19. The ones who are paying are being taken to the cleaners right now

Universal care is just plain cheaper for everybody.

[harun]

43. Every way I look at it I cannot see why business would not be

the biggest PROPONENT of a NHI plan. Removes it from the equation for them and they can worry about other things.

Especially small business. Look at how much more grow we would get in the small business and entrepreneurial arena with new company's starting up. Would be so much easier to launch new startups, mostly in terms of being able to get new talent. They could leave the bigger boys and try riskier ventures if they knew they would not be losing their health care.

[TexasBushwhacker]

120. Having worked for a small business ...

I have no doubt that most of them would prefer to not have the hassle of dealing with health insurance. Most large businesses wouldn't either. When everyone is covered by a single payer plan, like Medicare, the risk pool includes everyone. Despite laws against discrimination, what employer would knowingly hire some who has diabetes, or is a cancer survivor, or has had a heart bypass? Knowing that it could affect their ability to get reasonably priced health insurance in the future, what woman would get the test for the abnormal BRCA 1 or 2 gene that raises her risk of breast cancer dramatically. Especially for a small business, these people would be considered high risk, and would make the employer's premiums go up.

If single payer plans work for the rest of the industrialized countries, we can figure out a way to make them work for us.

[harun]

141. I think there are numerous ways we can make them work

even better for us.

I saw this article yesterday about autism:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/04/01/autism.insurance/?iref=mpstoryview

and what the insurance companies are saying about treatments.

'experimental... denied,' or 'provided by a non-licensed provider... denied.' Or sometimes the insurance companies would say 'this therapy is educational in nature, not medical... denied.'"

If we get enough people to realize that for profit insurance companies job is to pay for as little Health Care as possible we can win this fight. That if you or someone in your family gets a condition they can get away with not paying, they won't cover squat. People need to know the truth.

[sutz12]

67. It is one thing, though, that keeps employees held hostage....

Many can't entertain changing jobs because of the effect on their health care, particularly if they have a pre-exisiting condition that would not be 'portable.' If you have a chronic condition, you are effectively a wage slave.

[bluerum]

98. Ahhh. I suppose that is true. But does that out-weigh the extra cost of

maintaining HR staff and health plans for those employees?

[sutz12]

133. Well, right now, benefits can be a magnet to attract new employees...

as well as an anchor to lock in existing ones. I think companies that can afford it are kind of coerced into providing something, although benefits have been eroding fast over the last decade or so as costs have risen.

I'm not sure what the cost/benefit is overall, though.

This feels like something where the industry associations might be swayed by the insurance carriers to work against what the individual companies might want to do.

[bluerum]

137. All that expense - cost to maintain HR staff and cash for insurnace premiums, can go

into providing better facilities and higher pay for employees. That should be a magnet to attract employees. This assumes that upper management does not skim all the savings off themselves.

Of course, in buSh's america, the work force is a large pool of people fighting each other simply for the chance to work - regardless of pay rates or benefits.

[daleo]

9. The vast majority of doctors in Canada support public health care, too

Various reasons:
- it lets the doctor focus on medicine rather than money.
- easier on doctors ethically.
- doctors don't have nearly as much paperwork.
- doctors don't have to chase down bad debts.
- doctors are still highly paid and highly respected.

[awoke_in_2003]

16. The reduction

in paperwork alone would mean big reductions in cost. It is crazy that, everytime I go to a diffent doctor, I have to fill out piles of paperwork, all of which must be inputted by someone. But, here in the US, it is all about profits for the insurance companies.

[yellerpup]

11. K&R!

Kickin' for recognition. This is just great to know BNL. Thanks. :kick:

[eagertolearn]

12. Count my husband in too....

He has been for universal health care for a long time! It seems that more and more people are uninsured and when they have an emergency of course they are taken care of and all of us who are paying for insurance are covering all of them. Plus my husband said that medicare is paying less and less and he sometimes barely gets enough to cover the cost of doing the procedures. I saw in the paper the other day that a lot of convalescent homes will not take medicare only for payment or at all because it isn't enough. Where are all of the elderly going to go? Everyone should have medical care and I think we should pay with some sort of sliding scale depending on income and amount of dependents etc... We have friends in Canada and Norway who are very happy with their system. Heck, my brother, before he died of alcoholism (at age 44), cost the system millions of dollars of medical care and jail time (illegal to drink on the streets so he spent over 450 times in jail) where as forced rehab and assistance with mental health issues could have been cheaper and he might still be alive. There is so much more that can be done!!! We just pay for it in different ways!

[truedelphi]

14. Welcome to DU. n/t

[DissedByBush]

13. I'd like to see the actual survey

Nationalized health car vs. what? Vs. the current system of total chaos? Of course they'd say yes. They spend so much time dealing with various insurance companies that they have to hire extra staff just for that. Sometimes they can't do a needed procedure because the HMO doesn't want to do pay, or they're waiting precious hours to find out.

Yes, the current system needs a serious overhaul, as the insurance companies have too much power. A nationalized system moves the power to the government that we can trust and has served us so well (*cough*BS*cough*). But both options forget the issue is that the power needs to move to the patients and their doctors.

I've spent literally weeks of my life dealing with various government bureaucracies, and honestly I preferred being in a war. I've only spent minutes of my life dealing with my health insurance companies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Well, there's the key --

"...dealing with my health insurance companies."

You have insurance. 50 million Americans don't. Another 50 million have less than adequate insurance. Tens of thousands of people who HAVE insurance go bankrupt every year, as their medical expenses overwhelm the insurance they have.

Tell me, how much time do you spend fighting with the Social Security Administration? They've been doing their job very well for seventy years, and even with the baby boomers retiring, the program is solvent until at least 2040 (by which time most baby boomers will be DEAD).

The government can do some things very well - and it's not like we'd be jumping in blind. There are dozens of examples of funtioning systems across the industrialized world that we could draw upon for how to make it work - in fact, we are the ONLY major industrial nation that does NOT have national healthcare (which puts us at a severe disadvantage in international trade - but that's a whole other topic).

A proper national healthcare system DOES put all the power in the hands of the doctors. They control the treatment - the government does nothing but pay for it (out of high taxes, of course, but OTOH your employer won't be holding out pay to cover your company health benefits, either, which will just about make it a wash).

[DissedByBush]

95. Tell me, how much time do you spend fighting with the Social Security Administration?

About a total day last year. Cumulative, the case took years overall and probably a week or more of actual time.

"There are dozens of examples of funtioning systems across the industrialized world that we could draw upon for how to make it work"

I hope we don't look to the UK, because that's a disaster. I know a lot of Brits, and I don't know one that's fond of NHS. People come here from Canada all the time because of their system, so maybe not look there. Germany is pretty good, but it's a dual public/private system, and when you're on public insurance you still see a huge AOK deduction on your paycheck (IOW, the public insurance is basically just another insurance company, and they've recently had cutbacks to keep it from going bankrupt).

[LanternWaste]

142. And the Brits I know love NHS

"I know a lot of Brits, and I don't know one that's fond of NHS. People come here from Canada all the time because of their system, so maybe not look there."

And the Brits I know love NHS. People from America go to Canada all the time because of their system, so maybe let's look there.

(Anecdotal evidence can slide both ways...)

[WhiteTara]

18. well, my Mother has been using Medicare for years

and she finds it very workable for the most part. I thin we forget that Social Securiy and Medicare are run by the government and if "they" would quit dipping into our pool, it would be very efficient.

[magellan]

20. National health care puts the power in the hands of doctors and patients

The government sets up an agency to oversee the system. Doctors manage their patients as they see fit without intrusion. Patients can see their doctors whenever necessary.

The only place this can go wrong is if the government agency isn't regulated to ensure the bureaucracy (paperwork) is kept to a manageable, efficient level, or if the system isn't properly funded. But there are good national health care systems in other countries that could serve as a model for ours.

The Right has been telling us forever that national healthcare isn't as good as what we have. Tell you what. I lived for several years in the UK and after being back in the US for a few years I can say, without reservation, that despite its flaws the UK system is in many important ways head and shoulders above ours.

The Right condemns single-payer health care systems as (borrowed from the Cato Institute) "far from equitable; in fact, it often correlates with income—with rich and well-connected citizens jumping the queue for treatment."

Really? That didn't happen in my experience. The most I ever had to wait to see my GP in the UK was two weeks. For a check-up, who cares? Life-threatening injuries/illnesses are not handled that way. And even if it were true, how is that worse than 47 million, including children, going without proper care at all because they can't afford the obscene costs?

We have the ability to do this and make it THE BEST national health care system in the world. We can learn from the mistakes of other countries (which are minor compared to our system). But only if we stop listening to RW rhetoric paid for by the insurance companies and DEMAND the scrapping of this system for the rich, by the rich.

[Enthusiast]

28. Just consider,

with a government run health care sytem we won't need these million Dollar CEOs.

[DissedByBush]

112. Power in the hands of the people?

I'm trying, but I can't think of one current government agency that puts power in the hands of the people. In fact, they tend to do the opposite. For example, welfare meant to help instead enslaves.

All this gimme, gimme, gimme. What happened to the great party of JFK?

[magellan]

132. Gimme, gimme, gimme?

Tell that to the millions of kids who aren't getting proper medical care because their parents can't afford health insurance.

I'm willing to pay 5% of my income to ensure NO American is denied coverage. How about you?

[DissedByBush]

134. But, but, It's For The Children!

Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.

Yes, the current system is broke. We agree. We only disagree that a nationalized system can do it better. Even if government insurance is the best answer, a state-based system is better. Every state is different and has different needs, and our country was set up the way it is exactly because of that. 545 people off in one distant place were not supposed to have this much direct power over us.

"I'm willing to pay 5% of my income to ensure NO American is denied coverage. How about you?"

Only 5%? Either you're extremely optimistic or you have a great sense of humor. Medicaid (the federal portion, not counting state) and Medicare are already almost 20% of the federal budget and growing every year, and they only cover a minority of Americans. We're looking at Medicare going bankrupt soon. What do we do when the one insurance for everyone goes bankrupt? Raise taxes again? Put it on the debt like Shrub loves to do for Daddy's War?

[magellan]

147. If you set it up by state

...then you run into the problem of some states having great coverage and everyone flocking there, others deciding they just aren't going to fund it properly, and an unknown quantity fleecing the system to line their pockets. In a federal program there's one point of money flow in and out.

As for the 5% figure, read about it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3064126

Medicaid and Medicare costs are out of control because more people are qualifying for it every year on the basis of income. If people can't get a decent wage, they can't afford to pay for health insurance. If they lose their jobs to outsourcing, downsizing, etc, they can't afford to pay for health insurance. If their pensions disappear due to corrupt corporate management, they can't afford to pay for health insurance.

If hospital and prescription costs keep rising, less and less of us will be able to afford to pay for health insurance.

These are all symptoms of a bigger problem, one that's been developing for decades as a result of Republican "trickle-down", "free market", deregulate-and-privatize-everything economics. Reform is needed on several fronts, including who we put in power. Business-friendly politicians work to benefit the private sector, not the American people. It should be no surprise that after 30 years of this abuse, public services and the middle class are being squeezed out of existence.

[DissedByBush]

148. It's a lot of problems all together

"then you run into the problem of some states having great coverage and everyone flocking there, others deciding they just aren't going to fund it properly"

Welcome to reality of how our country was founded. We are a federation of sovereign states, not an all-in-one government. Corruption will happen, that's a given, no matter what the structure is.

"As for the 5% figure, read about it here:"

I remember recently a drug that the NHS refused to allow for the people since it was too expensive. That's one way to save money.

"Medicaid and Medicare costs are out of control because more people are qualifying for it every year on the basis of income. "

Exactly. Now imagine if the enrollment rate were 100%. You want to talk about "out of control" costs?

"f hospital and prescription costs keep rising"

One thing we can do is stop subsidizing the nationalized health care systems of the rest of the world. In Canada, UK, Germany, France, etc., the government will only pay so much for drugs. So Big Pharma sells to them at a below-market price and sticks us with the remainder. That's why people here go to Canada for drugs.

What happens to the rest of the health care systems when they no longer have us as the cost outlet when our health care has been nationalized? It won't be pretty.

"It should be no surprise that after 30 years of this abuse, public services and the middle class are being squeezed out of existence."

30 years. That would include 11 years of Democratic presidents and Democratic Party control of the House and/or Senate for most of that time. Unfortunately, most of the Democrats in power lately seem to be almost as beholden to big business as the Republicans. We've already marginalized anyone who's not bought, like Kucinich.

[magellan]

155. Well, at least we agree overall

There are solutions, but the road there will be difficult if not impossible. As with most of the problems facing this country, neither party is friendly to the people anymore.

Just one thing.

"I remember recently a drug that the NHS refused to allow for the people since it was too expensive. That's one way to save money."

Yes, and I acknowledged the flaws in other systems, and even said we could adopt similar but fix/avoid those problems -- make ours better. The post I linked to was in response to your disbelief that we could do a national system at 5% of average income, not to extol the virtues of the NHS. There's a lot of bureaucratic waste in their system.

[DissedByBush]

118. Have you seen our government?

"The only place this can go wrong is if the government agency isn't regulated to ensure the bureaucracy (paperwork) is kept to a manageable, efficient level, or if the system isn't properly funded."

Our government is full of agencies and bureaucracies run amok. Even the NSA, which for years has taken "Thou shalt not spy on Americans" as gospel did a 180 just because one crooked President asked. And funding won't be a problem. It'll be funded so much that money will be leaking out of the bureaucrats' ears, and out of the system, as it is managed with the usual government efficiency. I've worked in the government. Even well-meaning people within the bureaucracy can do little to help things. Often even small advances you push hard for get wiped out by the next lifer bureaucrat that comes in after you leave. That's why I no longer work there.

"But only if we stop listening to RW rhetoric paid for by the insurance companies and DEMAND the scrapping of this system for the rich, by the rich."

I still don't understand this hatred of the "rich." I'm not even close to "rich," but I understand that people who work hard to get rich is what keeps the economy afloat, creates jobs. I understand that if my dad were to die today the decent retirement he built up by 40 years of working hard and saving while paying taxes all the way, and the house he built over 10 years with his own hands in an area where real estate values later skyrocketed, would go to me, minus about HALF since that's considered "rich money" and we have to screw the "rich."

I've told him to try to blow it all before he dies. At least then he gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor instead of it being jacked by people who don't deserve it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

130. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The "agencies run amok" are not the result of a single president, but a concerted effort over 60 years by the republicans to destroy that very government. They have been working to gut the effectiveness of all bureaucracies because their twisted ideology says that nothing works unless it is privatized - and they to their best to make sure that nothing works, just to prove their point.

The quote you copied, then ignored, was speaking to the CEOs of these insurance companies pulling down mulit-million dollar paychecks for the great job they do of denying needy people medical coverage. I can understand why you didn't try to defend that, because it is indefensible.

As for the 'hate the rich', by your very words you have no understanding of what 'rich' means. You talk about the 'likelihood' of not collecting everything your father would leave you should he die (god forbid); yet, the inheritance tax does not apply unless he is leaving you something over two MILLION dollars. In which case, you'd have to make do with a mere one MILLION dollars that you, yourself, DID NOT EARN. To expect anyone to feel sorry for you while posting in a thread about 50 million people who do not have healthcare - well, I can't say it or I'll get this deleted by the mods. I'll settle for GROW THE FUCK UP.

[DissedByBush]

135. Right, right, right

"The "agencies run amok" are not the result of a single president, but a concerted effort over 60 years by the republicans to destroy that very government."

The Democratic Party has controlled one or both houses of Congress, making the laws, for most of that 60 years. Almost a third of those years had both a Democratic President and Congress. And my time in government was before those scary years when Junior was prez and the Republicans held Congress.

"I can understand why you didn't try to defend that, because it is indefensible."

CEOs are supposed to be paid to make a profit. Screwing people over makes a profit in some industries. Thus the high pay. Simple. Sick, but simple. They need incentive in another direction.

"In which case, you'd have to make do with a mere one MILLION dollars that you, yourself, DID NOT EARN. To expect anyone to feel sorry for you"

I know I wouldn't have earned it. Neither would the government. But he's my dad, not the government's dad. And the amount is that high just because he built his house in an area that later became very popular. With the tax on his death, I don't think there is any way I could keep that beautiful house and property in the family.

The government already taxed the earning of that money. The government would tax it again when spent. The government does not deserve another half in between as a penalty for dying. "Sorry your dad's dead, now give us half of everything he worked for his whole life." It's just sick. He wasn't the government's dad, but apparently he was the government's bitch.

I don't know about you, but I would feel sorry for the guy who has his Mercedes carjacked even though there's no way I can afford one myself. I don't take perverse pleasure in seeing hard-working people who have done nothing wrong get screwed over, whether they be rich or poor.

[magellan]

131. Well then, there's no point in changing a thing, is there?

Let's be happy with what little we've got, and what many of us don't, and what many more of us will be unable to afford as time goes on. My husband and I have had to change our policy twice so far in order to keep some kind of health insurance. We've wound up with less each time and will be priced right out of the market eventually, as will many others.

Oh, and about hating the rich? That's another RW talking point. I don't hate people who come by their money honestly. It's the people who amass their fortunes by using and cheating others I hate. Tell me the CEOs of insurance companies who raise their rates annually and hire adjudicators to find any reason not to pay out on a genuine claim while they make off with millions deserve anything less than my contempt. Tell me the CEO of Bear Stearns deserves my love for walking away with his millions after running the company into the ground and leaving us taxpayers saddled with the debt. THOSE are the kind of people I hate.

Try not to take it personally.

[DissedByBush]

136. Regulation definitely needed

I'm looking for a reasonable middle ground. I have seen first-hand a nationalized system bankrupting a country, and I see that ours is headed that way. I have also seen our current system that lets people fall through the cracks.

The insurance companies need to be regulated, and I don't mean this wishy-washy stuff we have today, regulations practically written by the companies themselves.

"Tell me the CEO of Bear Stearns deserves my love for walking away with his millions after running the company into the ground and leaving us taxpayers saddled with the debt."

That's an interesting case. I wasn't a Bears Stearns stock holder, so it's not up to me to be mad about him walking off with his money. If I were one, I'd be up front in a lawsuit. As far as leaving the taxpayers saddled with the debt, I believe that's just Bush & Co taking care of their own at our expense yet again. The taxpayers shouldn't be stuck with the tab for a failing company. That whole thing was a mess, greedy people who thought they deserved to own a home even though they weren't financially ready for it, and greedy banks more than willing to loan them the money knowing their financial condition. Everyone got what they deserved, except the CEOs who walk away free and the taxpayers who will have to bail everyone out.

[sendero]

153. The way health care is done in the US today..

... is the most EXPENSIVE way possible. Emergency room visits, lack of preventive care, 25% administrative cost skim, etc, etc, etc.

A single payer system is NOT going to cost any more.

[DissedByBush]

162. Greed is both evil and good

In the race for for-profit hospitals and insurance companies to cut costs we all know the evil side: cutting off people when they become too expensive, etc. That's what makes the news, and rightly so. We tend to forget the good side: increasing efficiency and decreasing overhead in order to cut costs and therefore realize more profit.

The government is not very good at the latter part. It is very inefficient with high overhead, and there is little incentive to cut these costs. There's no profit to be made, and any expanded budget only requires raising taxes or fees, or simply raising the national debt. It also works to fake a lower unemployment rate, as a lot of needless employees technically aren't unemployed. I might think about such a system if it were run like a non-profit corporation that has a very limited operating budget. But that's not going to happen.

If I may go slippery-slope for a minute, there's more. The government will then be responsible for investigating fraud in the system, and we know attempts at fraud will be endemic. With this extra power given to the government, "We have to be vigorous in investigating fraud for your own good," I wonder how many more of our rights will fall. The government, and thus people like George W. "What 4th Amendment?" Bush and Hillary "I love to read FBI files" Clinton will have full access to your health records. It'll be fun when (what a) Dick Cheney finds out a Democratic hopeful contracted AIDS and gets to dig as to how it happened.

Normally I'm not a believer of slippery-slope, but the government has never let me down in sliding more.

Ah, the "Don't worry, failure to wear your seat belt is not a primary offense that you can get pulled over for, so let us pass this seat belt law, it's not so bad" 80s (most states with primary offense seat belt laws first enacted them as secondary offense laws).

[sendero]

163. Let me put it this way..

... if single-payer ever happens, I will be out of a job, I work in the industry.

Even so, if you have a look at how this business is done right now, there is no way you can support it, and I actively wish for a single payer system.

Medicare runs their system for about 2% overhead. Managed care costs 25%.

There really isn't any rational case for what we have now.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

22. insurance is for profit. Medicare and medicaid actually is for people

no $5,000 deductables.
no refusal to treat "pre-conditions".
no refusal to treat!

Myself, I can't get insurance but my mother who I care for has medicare and
a medigap policy.

[bobbolink]

59. interesting that nobody is responding to those of us who are questioning the "insurance" part

:shrug:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. the US is one of the few modern countries WITHOUT universal health care

no wonder we are sinking in every way -
can't compete with other countries manufacturing base,
people are not as happy here,
next generation is WORSE off than previous....

[Enthusiast]

27. Justify the enormous profits insurance

Justify the enormous profits insurance companies take. They do nothing to aid in actual health care. The insurance companies receive money for no services provided. What is the sense in that? This is THE single reason U.S. health care costs twice as much.

[Bread and Circus]

40. You don't have a very good grasp on the facts of the case and you'd

do well to do some research about it.

First off, the Government controls Medicare, which actually serves its recipients and physicians/hospitals very well. Second, industrialized countries that have single payer national health plans actually have MORE EFFICIENT systems and pay about 1/2 per capita for health care compared to the United States. Third, despite our paying nearly twice as much per capita for health care we still don't get the best results on an overall level as measured by the WHO.

Your talking points are recycled Right Wing canards that don't actually hold up to the light of truth.

Do yourself a favor and go to www.pnhp.org and READ.

P.S. I'm a physician and I can 100% guarantee you that our system is a wasteland of bureaucracy as it is, and largely in part due to Byzantine practices of PRIVATE insurance companies on top of the patchwork system of duplication and gaps that we employ.

A single unified system is a better choice and experience of other nations in terms of outcome and costs proves that.

[Gormy Cuss]

48. Here ya go.

$20 for a single day pass and you can read online.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/148/7/566

[LSK]

63. What Government Bureaucracies have you spent weeks dealing with???

I think you are making it up.

[DCKit]

21. In "Sicko" the doctors were emphatic in their support for national health care.

They get to spend working hours with patients, their remaining time with their families and zero hours doing the massive paperwork required for reimbursement from the insurance companies. As far as I know, accounting for an American doctor is like doing taxes weekly, biweekly or monthly, with patient visits snuck in between. Who needs that B.S. in their life? I'm sure it would be pure joy for the majority to simply go to work each day and do their job then leave as most of the rest of us do.

What's not to like?

[harun]

44. I think many doctors get to the point where they ask themselves

did I go to medical school so I could argue with Insurance companies or did I go to practice medicine?

[Serial Mom]

47. Or did I go to med school to keep prescribing meds the pharma are pushing

or did I go to to med school to sign a contract with an insurance company to see a quota of patients in a given time frame?

or did I go med school to have an insurance company decide what is best for my patient with denial of my recommendations or denial of the patient's choice?

or did I go to med school to have insurance companies dictate how, when, where and why I see patients!


Thank goodness many doctors are have seen the light and are speaking out!

[harun]

52. We the doctors on board we have a real chance of improving things

[bobbolink]

60. If you notice, the article says "insurance" it DOESN'T say "healthcare"

That seems to be escaping those here...

:shrug:

[bjobotts]

24. Lobbyists have still convinced Obama & Clinton to keep it for profit to

continue profiteering from our health care. Thinking it won't get passed or that the country is not ready to extend Medicare and Medicaid. They refuse to admit they are wrong only because of the campaign donations they get from this group. It is time for a not for profit single payer national health care plan and remember Medicare pays more when everyone is a member.

[bjobotts]

25. No excuse to have a "for profit" health care system...none.

[LWolf]

36. It's too bad that voters didn't

support the candidate that has already put such a system on the table in HR 676. It's a huge issue, and we have Democrats willing to offer us universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

[bobbolink]

61. Yes, Edwards would have been great at changing things.

:)

[TabulaRasa]

26. Doctors who don't support UHC

are beneath contempt. I can't even imagine such a thing. It'd be like a teacher being in favor of abolishing the public school system. People who are sick shouldn't get treated? Why? Because you want to make a little more money? What bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

124. May I offer some possible reasons some healthcare providers

are wary of UHC?

It's possible that they see the hassles they've had with Medicare and Medicaid growing from a portion of their business to 100% of their business. Who's to say that having a dozen private insurers denying some treatment or drug therapy is any worse than a government bureaucracy making the same decisions?

Also, of those who propose UHC, who's out there trying to minimize the legal risks that healthcare providers face from people who are sue-happy? I'd gladly sign a piece of paper submitting any claims I have to binding arbitration in order to get a lower deductable, co-payment, or premium. Can the majority of UHC proponents make the same claim? Without it, freebie doctor visits just become lottery tickets that give an excuse for someone to make a patient a little better off, and a lawyer quite wealthy. I can't blame healthcare providers who want to address the fact that they have to practice defensive medicine, ordering large numbers of unneccessary tests, in order to cover their asses from ambulance chasers.

The current system indeed needs to be replaced, but I understand the desire of healthcare providers to see important issues addressed in any proposals to supplant what we have. When the politicians start considering comprehensive solutions, then we'll see these folks on board.

[sasquatch]

29. Kick

:kick:

[cutlassmama]

30. they are tired of the endless paperwork and still not getting paid

by the insurance companies who hassle them constantly.

[Yavin4]

49. YEEEEEEEEEEPPPPP!!!!

And, they have to hire additional staff just to track down the payments from the hodge podge of insurance companies.

[bobbolink]

62. the article is about "insurance", so what would change???

????????

[happygoluckytoyou]

31. GOP SHOULD FAVOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE---->

I feel certain that if it were easier to get mental health care the president would be a lot healthier and the country better off for it.

[annabanana]

34. This SO deserves national coverage... Our corpomedia won't touch it

with a crooked, devalued dollar on a stick. The "insurance" companies are extortion companies...

[mainer]

35. Health insurance industry holds all the cards

And, sorry to inject politics into this, but when Hillary held secret hearings on health care, she shut OUT the doctors and gave all her attention to insurance executives. Ever since then, I've not trusted her judgment.

[Vinca]

37. It's a moral obligation to make sure everyone in this country

has access to healthcare that is affordable to all. That doesn't mean an insurance policy on the cheap that covers so little it's not worth the paper it's written on. Universal, single payer, paid for by a tax increase. If Bush can charge a war on the Chinese credit card, surely Democrats could pay for healthcare by a small tax increase.

[NorthCarolina]

38. Call and/or write your Congressional Rep. to Support HR 676

if you prefer Universal Health Care as opposed to Universal Health Insurance for America. The bill is there, it's just looking for more supporters.

[Bread and Circus]

39. I'm one of those doctors who supports Single Payer Universal Health Care

for more info: www.pnhp.org

[knitter4democracy]

81. Thank you!

Thank you for your hard work, your dedication, and for wanting a national health care plan. Oh, and Happy Doctors' Day a few days late. :)

[pattmarty]

42. See, 8 yrs of Bush has made at least ONE CHANGE for the better.

[knitter4democracy]

46. Hubby's all for it, and so are many doctors he works with.

Not everyone, of course, but most primary care docs would love a single payer system. It would be a huge amount better than the broken system we have now.

[PA Democrat]

53. I would think most doctors would agree with your husband.

I'm always shocked at how many people work in my PCP's office just to process the insurance company paperwork.

[knitter4democracy]

64. We'd save billions just by having one form.

Every company has a different form, and some companies have different forms for different plans. If we only had one form, it would save medicine billions.

[blondeatlast]

50. Even my wealthier than God (but wonderful and caring) PCP is for it.

She took me as a Medicaid patient and still values me after many years as a CIGNA PPO patient. Less paperwork. less hassle, less hoops for her to jump through--I guarantee Medicaid was easier for her.

K&R--and a shout out to my wonderful Dr. T!

[Javaman]

51. Ahh but 100% of insurance companies and drug corps don't. end of story.

never will happen. They fund all the candidates.

[Felix Mala]

54. They're getting screwed by the billion dollar CEO's just like the rest of us.

[bobbolink]

55. And national "insurance" is what....? More corporate welfare?

Either this is badly worded, or nothing has really changed.

[knitter4democracy]

65. Some doctors don't trust the government, unfortunately.

They've lived through Medicaid being gutted to the point that it costs doctors to take those patients, and they see how Medicare is only paying them by cutting payments to hospitals, and they worry that the government would ruin medicine.

I think they forget that Medicare has a 3% overhead, while every insurance company has a 22-30% overhead. That alone tells me it's time to get private insurance out of medicine.

[bobbolink]

68. I'm very relieved to know that INSURANCE hasn't "ruined medicine".

:crazy:

[knitter4democracy]

70. That's not what I said, though.

The government has ruined Medicaid, so doctors worry that the government would ruin things if they took over everyone's coverage. I don't know a single doctor who thinks insurance companies are good things or have made medicine better. They all hate insurance companies, but they also hate what happened to Medicaid. They're scared of things staying the way they are, and they're scared of change that might be even worse.

[bobbolink]

71. Hence it stays the same, and people die.

Fear is just great.

[knitter4democracy]

76. The AMA doesn't want it to stay the same.

Neither does the group Physicians for a National Health Care Plan. Both groups are putting serious money into lobbying for change.

[bobbolink]

79. What change would that be?

The AMA seems to be in love with the corporations.... playing a nice game of footsies.

While I appreciate the PNHP, I don't seem them as doing very well at a strategery.

They SHOULD have been well-prepared to take full advantage of SICKO... they reached their same choir, same as always.

I admire their willingness to speak out against the big money, but... they haven't been too effective.

:cry:

[knitter4democracy]

85. Things are changing, though.

More and more med schools are banning all Pharma advertising and marketing outright. More and more conferences are Pharma-free, too. The AMA has come out for a national health care plan and against Pharma's insidious marketing crap. Hubby's practice keeps drug reps to certain days and times, which makes it easier for Hubby to avoid them entirely (which he does--he hates those people).

In AMNews, there are letters to the editor all the time about how awful it is out there and how insurance companies are the ones behind it. There have been editorials in the New England Journal of Medicine that trash the Bush administration, insurance companies, and Pharma. When Hubby first started here in town, most doctors here were still for insurance, thinking they'd make more money with insurance rather than a national plan. Just a few short years later, they've completely changed, seeing just how awful it's getting for everyone (especially themselves with their own crappy-but-expensive insurance plans). Now they're lobbying the state AMA chapter for changes at the state level, and some in town are working with the AMA to change things to a national plan.

We didn't get into this mess overnight, so it's going to take awhile to clean up. As Hubby says, until it starts affecting the rich, we won't see change, but it is starting to affect the rich, so I think things are going to change for the better with the next president.

[bobbolink]

91. Well, how wonderful they're talking about it in their journals...

I guess that's a step.

BUT DAMN, how 'bout talking about it out in the open?

How 'bout a few full page ads in national newspapers and magazines?

As I said in my thread about "the housing crisis", I no longer care about it affecting the rich, and if your husband thinks that will change anything for ME and those in my shoes, he is badly mistaken.

The "housing crisis" has been horrendous among us poor folk for DECADES.. yet, now that it's hitting the muddleclass, is it doing anything for US?

Shit, no!

It's only about those with money.

The rest of us can hurl ourselves over a cliff.

[knitter4democracy]

108. I've seen ads.

Look at the OP--doctors are getting the message out. It's just being ignored bt the powers that be, just like poverty and ending the war, two issues with a lot of public support and no government movement.

[bobbolink]

113. It's time we stopped blaming "the powers that be". We're NOT powerless, unless we decide we are.

When FDR was president, and Eleanor saw an injustice she wanted remedied, she would take it to him, and often he would say, "Make me." By that he meant, go get the public support, and then it will get done.

Same here. They need to learn to be effective in garnering public support, and then it will happen.

Help people to understand the real issues, and remove the blocks to their speaking out, and they will DEMAND it, and then there will be no stopping it.

These are smart people, or they wouldn't be doctors. They can put their heads together and figure out how to help people understand, and how to unleash their pent-up frustrations.

Really, they can.

[knitter4democracy]

121. Sure they can. Then they're ignored.

Our own VP said, "So?" when asked about raging anti-war sentiment. They don't care about us, and they don't care about doctors or the uninsured. They didn't listen to millions marching to prevent the war, and they haven't started listening yet.

So, most docs I know just work on their patients and each other one-by-one, hoping it'll make a real difference eventually. The AMA puts money into lobbying all the time, not like it gets them anything. Eventually, things will change, but it'll take a hell of a lot longer than I'd like.

[bobbolink]

122. You're still talking about "THEY" Think about "US"

Talk to we, the people.

[knitter4democracy]

123. I've lost most of my hope these days.

I see huge ad campaigns for someone like Edwards and for national health care, see the poll numbers that say the vast majority of the US is for national health care, and I see absolutely zero movement in Congress and the White House. We the People want it. By any measure, we want national health care (not insurance--care, real care like they have in Canada). Article after article gets published, websites get put up, millions get spent in lobbying, and not a damn thing happens.

Honestly, I don't know anymore what it will take to make the war end, to get national health care, to a get a new New Deal for America. Marching doesn't do it, ad campaigns don't do it, lobbying doesn't do it. I just don't know what will.

[bobbolink]

125. Well, I'm trying strongly to suggest to you, but I don't think you can hear me.

" I see absolutely zero movement in Congress and the White House. "

sigh.... did you get what I said about FDR?

"Marching doesn't do it, ad campaigns don't do it, lobbying doesn't do it. I just don't know what will."

I'll try this again... NO, you're absolutely right, marching will NOT get us anything. Surely we've learned this by now. All it does is make the participants feel warm and fuzzy about themselves.

"We the People want it."

This is where you and I aren't meshing.

Even you said that not all doctors want it.

So, do you really think ALL 'Murkins want it?

No, they don't.

And, why not?

FEAR.

NOWHERE TO I SEE EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGNS AGAINST THE PROPAGANDA THAT HAS TRAPPED 'MURKINS IN SHOOTING-THEMSELVES-IN-THE-FOOT THINKING.

Sorry for yelling, but really, THIS is the part that's missing.

What we're doing with this at DU is preaching to the choir, with the exception of some of the trolls, and they are here to mess with our heads anyway.

I don't know what percentage, but I can tell you for sure that MANY of "us" simply don't know the facts of the matter. What are we gonna do about that?

Blame Congress?

Keep blaming the RW, while thousands of us die every year????

Or, are we gonna dig down, figure out what the blockage is, and tackle it?

How serious are we about this?

If you start with the assumption that most 'Murkins (and that includes a fair number of doctors!) are ignorant, maybe you'd get to some actual solutions.

[knitter4democracy]

126. But most poll numbers put it in the sixties and seventies.

Sixty to seventy percent of the American public is for national health care. That same number is against the war. That's a pretty big majority for a country as vast and full of different groups as ours is. And nothing happens. Clinton had seventy percent approval ratings when he was impeached, and thank goodness some in the Senate finally listened to their constituents and voted to acquit. These days, though, it doesn't matter.

Our area's House Rep is bought and paid for by the religious right. The paper's editorial board hates him, he has terrible poll numbers here, several of us call his office all the freakin' time to complain, and we haven't swayed him on a single vote. The only thing left is to vote him out, and interestingly enough, some local Republicans are getting behind our strongest Dem candidate, since they've learned that he doesn't even listen to them, his own base.

Even when people aren't ignorant, we're still not listened to. It's not a democracy anymore--it's an oligarchy run by the rich and the corporations. They don't give a crap about how enlightened the populace is or what the huge majority thinks, and it shows.

[bobbolink]

128. You're right. It's hopeless. Let's just all roll over and die.

It's much easier than looking for the solutions.

All the same, predictable phrases.

Over and over. what has that accomplished.

But, you're right. We lost and it's all "their" fault. I guess that feels better.

[knitter4democracy]

129. No, it means it's time to get new rulers.

I don't think either Dem candidate's all that great (Edwards was far, far better, though I voted for Kucinich), but they're both far, far better than McCain. We need to take over Congress and the White House so we can put a lot of pressure on the Supreme Court and replace anyone else leaving soon.

In working to win the White House and Congress, we'll convince even more people that it's time for Americans to band together and help each other out with the economy falling apart. I think we're going to see a huge seachange this summer and this next fall.

[bobbolink]

149. It's a really, REALLY good thing the abolitionists weren't waiting around

to get new "rulers" -- we'd still have slavery.

[knitter4democracy]

156. But they did.

They helped get Lincoln elected, an unknown senator from Illinois. Most pundits at the time didn't think he had a chance of getting the nomination, let alone the presidency. The abolitionists helped him get elected.

[bobbolink]

159. Nice rewrite job. THEY INSTITUTED THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD,

for one thing.

They put their own lives on the line.

I'm really sick of all this feeling sorry for yourself crap on the part of doctors.

Get real.

I've given you several workable suggestions, and lots of avenues to explore.

Yet, all you want is the same, tired old "elect a Dem". That's worked really well for us so far, hasn't it?

That's all you have to say, while so many of us go without care because your hubby's collective doesn't want to deal with it, we suffer where you are shielded from it, and we die where you don't see it.

Poor babies.

Yet, what you will do with that is claim how angry I am.

Well, I gots news for you... so were the abolutionists, so were the suffragettes (who also didn't wring their hands and wait to get the "right" people elected... they suffered, and some DIED in order to win us the vote!), and so were the Civil Rights workers.

They were DAMNED angry.

So, dismiss me, yet again.

I tried to discuss it reasonably.

I'm done.

[knitter4democracy]

164. Of course they did.

They did that for decades, as did the suffragettes. Many abolitionists were lynched in mobs, run out of town, threatened, jailed, and more. What finally ended it, though, was that they worked to change public opinion and worked to get the leadership in Washington changed. If they hadn't done that, things would've stayed the same for far longer. The suffragettes ran into the same problem--changing public opinion and dying for the cause only worked so far. Changing the leadership in Washington and working to get the president and the Senate on their side was far more effective.

The problem is, it's pretty darn clear that the neocons and the Bush administration and many in our own party don't give a damn about Americans. All of us in the peace and justice movement could set ourselves on fire, and they'd just think, "Huh, fewer protesters," and move on. Look at Katrina--they murdered thousands and nothing happened. Groups are going down to help rebuild, and individuals are working to save NOLA and the Katrina diaspora, but the government isn't doing a damn thing. There was outrage, there was all sorts of public sentiment, and the government did nothing.

We are at a scary time in our country's history. We have leaders who don't care about the Constitution or the people. We could all die, and they wouldn't care until it hit their bottom line. People are dying, and the government is making it harder to help them and easier for more people to die. It's hard not to get cynical about that, and it'd damn difficult to have any hope.

We need to change the leadership in Washington as well as privately help everyone we can. People are dying, and the only way to stop that is to work for political change and to reach out and help everyone we can get to. Our political leadership rammed our ship of state into an iceberg, and we need to bail out the water, get rid of the captain and all of the officers, and save every life we can.

[bobbolink]

165. When you find that the "Change" in leadership doesn't materialize the "HOPE" you wish,

then maybe you'll start thinking in terms of ACTION on the part of We, The People.

Of course, there will be a lot more people dead by that time.

[knitter4democracy]

111. Here's an article I found:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/02/04/gvsa0204.htm

They want people to keep the uninsured in mind when they vote, and they took this campaign national.
Edited to add: I wish they just came out and argued for a national health care plan rather than stop-gap measures, but it's a start, I suppose. Other articles on the site rant about low Medicaid reimbursement and how so many doctors have dropped Medicaid patients (they lose too much money--the partners in Hubby's practice did the math and decided to drop their Medicaid patients, and Hubby was pretty upset about that).

[bobbolink]

114. Thank you for the article, and I've saved it for future reference.

The problem is, the comfortable "beautiful people", and that includes Dems and "progressives", don't really care about "the uninsured". It doesn't affect them, so to hell with it.

Somehow, there MUST be an effort to figure out how to get these comfortable beautiful people back in touch with their humanity, and regain the principles this party *USED* to stand for.

:(

[bobbolink]

92. How many deaths in that change?

:shrug: :cry::shrug: :cry::shrug: :cry::shrug: :cry:

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. "National health insurance" is single payer. n/t

[Mrhyde719]

66. health care out of the insurance company's hands? HA!

Set up a huge Government run health care plan and you know what our government does with big jobs? THEY OUTSOURCE THEM! Probably to the ins. companies themselves because they have SO much experience. :sarcasm: Or to some other "private contractor" Halliburton?

[bobbolink]

69. The article says NOTHING about taking out of insurance hands... it specifially calls it

INSURANCE.

Maybe you read "universal health CARE"?

Nope, read it again.. it says INSURANCE.

Probably mandated that EVERYONE WILL BUY INSURANCE.

Big frickin' deal.

[Dangerously Amused]

72. K&R.

[Perry Mason]

73. "None of the major party candidates support national healthcare..."

This sentence, found near the end of the article, is incomplete.

It SHOULD read, "...none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan because they are allowed to accept lucrative pay-offs from insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists."

It is the issue of national healthcare, above all others, by which I am most shocked and appalled at the mainstream media's deceptive misrepresentation of facts. They routinely refer to both Clinton and Obama's health-coverage plans as health-CARE plans (Lord knows health insurance and health care are two different things) and they have at the behest of the insurance/pharmaceutical thugs disseminated and maintained the total fiction that nationalized healthcare systems abroad are inadequate and inferior.

It is especially ironic that our current system is primarily supported by conservatives who feel it is a worthwhile expenditure of their time to erect a statue of the Ten Commandments in a federal courthouse to instigate a showdown with the ACLU and demand legislation identifying America as a specifically Christian nation, when for-profit healthcare is both immoral on its face and in direct contradiction to all the tenants of the Judeo-Christian faith.

The unchecked greed of the insurance/pharmaceutical lobby will continue to cost untold lives, will bankrupt an entire generation of retirees, will continue to cripple small business' capacity to provide jobs to their communities, and will ultimately wreck our entire economy. The media will aid and abet these criminals by insuring that the general population are ignorant of the facts and petrified of an evil foreign system of "socialized" medicine.

I am most of all sickened that our own Democratic party is too cowardly to field a candidate who will honestly address this issue. A pox on their house!

[bobbolink]

82. You're absolutely correct, and it is escaping the attention of those posting in this thread.

A pox on their house, indeeed!

It'sa big reason why the party is fading into obscurity.

[dh1760]

74. To the doctors reading this thread ...

Would you be able to make a living on what a single-payer system, structured like Medicare, would pay out? In some cases, Medicare pays as low as $3 for every $100 billed (depending on the procedure); they've consistently reduced the payment schedule, even as doctors costs have risen. For that matter, more and more doctors are refusing new Medicare patients (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77387.php).

[Perry Mason]

75. To the doctors reading this thread...

Let's see, does one go into medicine to aid the sick and infirmed, or does one go into medicine to get rich?

[knitter4democracy]

80. Most do it to help people.

Some go in it for the money and make sure to get into areas that pay very, very well (interventional radiology and pathologists make the best money, on average, and they also interact very little with patients). Pediatricians, family practitioners, internists, and Med/Peds docs get paid a lot, lot, lot less. There are peds in our area making $90K a year and less, and when you look at what they pay in med school loans and credit card debt from college, med school, and residency, that's not much.

For example, Hubby went to Case Western's med school, and while we both were lucky enough to get out of undergrad without any loans, most of his schoolmates didn't. Just for med school alone, we're paying off $175K in loans, more than our house is worth. Hubby drives an older Taurus that will be paid off this spring (and he'll keep it until it dies), too.

[bobbolink]

83. This is 'Murka. Your number 2 answer would be the correct one.

Oh, and add status.

[elias7]

99. And you know this how? Are you a doctor now?

Already we've seen a number of physician respond on this thread, yet you don't wait for their input. Are you so certain of your judgement?

[bobbolink]

115. At least I'm older than 16, buster.

that reply wasn't to you, in case you hadn't noticed.

Keep your teeny-bopper nose in your own business.

[elias7]

140. teeny-bopper?

I'm almost 3 times older than that, and I thought this was an open forum. I was responding to someone who was speaking for physicians by making some pretty big assumptions about physician motivation.

The question in this sub-thread was actually addressed to me, not to the person you're defending.

If you want my take, please see post 102.

[dh1760]

94. I'm not talking about "getting rich"; I know several pediatric docs...

... who have very clearly stated that what Medicare pays is sometimes *less* than what their costs are (staff, rent, insurance, etc), for the 15 to 30 minutes that they're devoting to the patient. If UHC reimburses doctors on a Medicare-style schedule, you can forget "getting rich" ... doctors won't even break even.

[knitter4democracy]

107. And yet, doctors do fine in Canada.

Specialists make a lot less, but primary care docs make about the same as here. We get job offers every once in awhile for Canada, and the numbers are very similar.

[knitter4democracy]

77. Hubby wants it like the Canadian system.

Doctors do well there with the payout system.

As for Medicare, most doctors keep an eye on the percentage of patients on Medicare to make sure they don't lose too much money. More and more aren't taking Medicaid at all, since they lose money on every patient for every billable visit. They'd need a more realistic payout than either of those, but cutting some payouts for some specialties wouldn't be a huge hardship. Do interventional radiologists really need to make a million a year?

[bobbolink]

84. Of course, they could CHOOSE to band together and DEMAND parity for Medicaid.

But it's so much easier to just toss us on the scrap heap.

And, of course, then blame us because we "don't take care of our health".

:mad:

[knitter4democracy]

87. They have. The AMA fought those changes tooth and nail.

They were entirely ignored. All that PAC money down the drain. Things are slowly changing, though.

[bobbolink]

89. They have BIG money at their disposal. Where are they publicly?

Why aren't they making this a very PUBLIC issue?

Why aren't they educating the 'Murkin public?

Because I can tell you, I encounter TREMENDOUS ignorance everywhere I go.. all the Latte Liberals always telling me how I have so many options, if only I'd just go take advantage of them!

Where ARE these doctors? Why don't they loudly proclaim all this to the 'Murkin public????

[knitter4democracy]

106. I'm not sure.

I see articles every month or so on doctors being unhappy with the current system and working for change. JAMA articles often make it into the mainstream media. I know my doctor's quite frank with me, as is Hubby, about how awful it is, and I know other doctors who rant and rave and volunteer at the county's free clinic as much as they can (which is often in the local press).

I think it's all part and parcel with the overwhelming sense of entitlement too many Americams have. Until something hits them personally, they just can't see it.

[Fedja]

78. Sickening

The current system MURDERS people. I thought you guys take an oath once you're done with medschool?

[bobbolink]

86. One person a day dies in Colorado strictly from lack of health care.

Where is the outrage???

(And many doctors think that's a very conservative number.....)

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[knitter4democracy]

88. They take it on the first day of med school, actually.

They repeat it at graduation, too.

Not all doctors are murderers, by the way. Most are actually good people doing their best to keep their patients alive and healthy.

[Fedja]

90. I realise that

..as I live in a country with completely nationalised healthcare. I giggle every time someone claims it "doesn't work".

I was a pretty accident prone kid, so I'm very familiar with our system. Suffice it to say, that the only reason the doctor asks for my name is so that he can enter my treatment in my medical records for later treatment reference.

[elias7]

104. Please, a little less anger and a little more perspective would be less flammable

[bobbolink]

116. Do you always go around shaking your finger in people's faces?

You act like a nun, waiting to hit somebody's fingers with a ruler.

[elias7]

139. I said,"please"

The post I responded to stated,"The current system MURDERS people. I thought you guys take an oath once you're done with medschool?"

As a citizen and a physician, I find that statement to be hyperbolic and unnecessarily inflammatory. I think my respone was fairly temperate considerate I was essentially accused of being a hypocrite and a murderer.

[bobbolink]

151. Actually, you may want to temper your own self. If you reread it, it says SYSTEM, not doctors.

While there are some doctors who INDEED do murder people, (and should be punished!) I would read that statement as having to do with the insurance system, which CERTAINLY murders people.. and probably ALL of the companies have!

[elias7]

157. OK bobbolink, how should I read that statement?

It says "system", then points a finger at doctors in the next sentence, not at insurance companies.

It says "I thought you guys take an oath once you're done with medschool?". An oath to what, not to murder people? Not be an accessory to murder by a third party? How should I read this? How can I not interpret this as an accusatory finger?

knitter4democracy reads it similarly to me, writing, "Not all doctors are murderers, by the way."

[bobbolink]

158. Do what you want. We need more friction; we need more accusations.

We need more upsets.

We need more diviseness.

Tell ya what.. you think you're being picked on, try this: Try living as a poor person for a while. Try going to a dr and being accused of being .... mentally ill, alcoholic, etc ONLY because you're on Medicaid.
Try being a poor sick person, and having half the population angry with you because they are SURE you get free medical care just by walking in anytime you want, and of course, you MUST be hypochondriac and just getting expensive attention, because it's all FREEE, and those poor, abused people have to PAY for their care: and the other half shrugs it's collective shoulders and says, "I can't help you. So sorry. Bye."

I'd be HAPPY, no.... cross that out.. I'd be OVER JOYED to trade places with you and have my worst worry be someone on a message board that I'm CONVINCED is calling me a murderer.

So, when do you want to trade with me?

[elias7]

161. I submit a fair read of our exchanges

shows more accusation and divisiveness on your part. You first told me that I'm a doctor to get rich and have status, then you called me a 16 year-old teeny-bopper, and then when I told someone implying that I was a murderer that they were being inflammatory, you accused me of being like a nun waiting to hit someone's hands with a ruler. Now you accuse me of being divisive.

Tell you what: Try being a doctor for people who think I am either contemptuous of them or apathetic. Try posting on a board where some have a knee-jerk reaction about doctors as being greedy, status seeking murderers. Do you really think my worst worry is that someone on a message board is prejudicial and judgmental? I see them all the time in person.

Professionally, my worst worries are that the next person that comes into the ER could die despite my best efforts to save them, that I may not be up to the task of saving a child who is turning blue before my eyes or that I may not recognize a life-threatening condition quickly enough. I have had people die right in front me of despite throwing the proverbial kitchen sink of treatments their way, then spend the next half hour with their devastated family helping them understand what happened and making sure they don't feel guilty or in any way responsible for the death. I worry about every patient I discharge that I might have missed something.

If you want that responsibility, sure, I'll trade with you. But I will expect you, as a physician to be kind and understanding and patient with me when I come in with the attitude that I have been waiting too long, and that you either don't give a shit about me or that you think I'm dirt just because I'm poor and on medicaid. And if I don't get what I want, I can go into a rant and insult you, threatening you with a lawsuit or a nasty letter to your superiors.

Of course, my life outside of medicine is perfect-- no health issues, no safety issues, no family issues, no financial issues, all the free time I want. It's a regular fairy tale
:sarcasm: :banghead:

I have sympathy for you, not because you are poor and sick, as you state, but because you are so angry that you cannot recognize someone trying to help, your thoughts prejudiced in the same way you accuse me of being.

[elias7]

102. It is really the only fair way to insure equal access and fair cost for everyone

I am a physician and in favor of a single payer system for universal healthcare. It's the only fair way. I would make less than I make now, I suspect (not that I make near what a businessman or insurance agent or banking type can make now), but that's not really the primary issue for us.

No one wants a pay cut-- how many of you would make that sacrifice?-- but we're not generally of a businessman mindset. On the flipside, not only would everyone be covered, but our jobs would be rid of many hassles.

For example, as an ED physician, I'd say at least a quarter to a third are "self-pay", many of whom cannot afford to pay their bill, and for the most who do, it breaks your heart to order expensive but necessary tests on those who you know will be feeling that cost for the next year or more. A chunk are dental patients who cannot get into see a dentist because of refusals to see non-insured or medicaid individuals. A chunk (maybe 25-35%) of our patients are elderly-ish on medicare (some with additional insurance coverage), and who as a whole get larger, more extensive and thus, costly workups, and the reimbursement is not known to me, but it is less than insurance companies. The rest have insurance privately. I think, on the balance, we would get a fairly equal return, perhaps less.

I know primary care docs make the least of all MD's, and I know that their jobs are riddled with hoops that really can make the days demeaning and miserable and long. I can't speak for subspecialties, but their specialized knowledge and testing is costly, as it should be. Costs I imagine are somewhat arbitrary, but fair market.

The danger of a single payer system would be arbitrary reimbursement for services, rather than market value, which I am (perhaps incorrectly) defining as what insurance companies pay. Of course insurance companies have determined arbitrarily what premiums to charge, and thus pass onto individuals and businesses. I would hope that the single payer system would find a balance that honors the value of the service.

it would take a lot of work to create such a system, but it would be worth it.

[knitter4democracy]

109. It would work if doctors could have a say in reimbursement.

At least with Medicare and Medicaid, the AMA can lobby for reimbursement and doctors can talk with their House Reps and all. With the insurance companies, there's no bargaining (it's actually illegal for doctors to band together and lobby private insurance companies for better rates). At least if it were public and out in the open and had to be voted on, doctors would have more of a say.

[bobbolink]

117. And there you go.

If they will do it.

[eib1]

93. and what impact does this have?

Quote:
More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday. end quote

What impact does this have on the AMA?
As far as I'm concerned, they've been one of the biggest stonewallers in the country with respect to universal healthcare.

[OzarkDem]

97. Two possibilities

It could force the AMA to fall in line with its members and if it doesn't, it could result in diminishing the AMA's power in Congress.

[Joanne98]

100. YAY!

[Chiloe]

101. American Health System

It's a disgrace. The model in, I think, all other Western countries is unlike the USA's. It's much better.

Watch SiCKO - great film.

[mother earth]

103. If you think about it, more people would be utilizing the doctors

services & the red tape/paperwork could be possibly minimized, not to mention the rates the insurance companies extract from MD's for malpractice insurance.

Imagine a gov't that regains its checks and balances, and health care that is about health, not rationing.
:bounce:

[HughBeaumont]

105. First it's referring to National Health CARE . . .

. . . and then on down it says "insurance".

"Insurance" isn't "Care".

"Care" is coverage NO MATTAH WHAT, which is the way it SHOULD be. Health CARE is a human right, not a privilege meant for the $300,000 and above set.

"Insurance" is S.S/D.N.; in a way, it's even worse, because then we'll ALL be paying to be denied because of "pre-existing conditions".

Make up thy minds. 'tis not one in the same.

[bobbolink]

119. That's what a few of us have pointed out, but it doesn't seem to register.

It is indicative of how poorly the advocates have been at actually EDUCATING the public about health care!

[Lorien]

145. My own GP says that getting money from any insurance company these

days is a battle royal. My father is also now a retired physician because the insurance industry drove him out of it. Between the cost of malpractice insurance and the battles over getting paid by his patient's insurance companies, it was no longer worth it. I even spoke to a nurse who was uninsured because she said that premiums and co-pays are so high, and coverage so scant that it's wiser to funnel the money into CDs instead and hope for the best. Our "system" is absolutely PATHETIC!

[bobbolink]

150. "Our "system" is absolutely PATHETIC!" And, yet, where's the outrage???

:shrug:

Our rugged individualism keeps us chained.

[knitter4democracy]

110. Some articles from Medical Economics, my fave med journal

http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/memag/Medical+Practice+Management%3A+Patient+Relations/The-Way-I-See-It-Some-doctors-welcome-the-uninsure/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/501554?contextCategoryId=25082&ref=25
(This one's about doctors who take uninsured patients and how they can give better care at certain clinics.)

http://blogs.memag.com/ (Their medblog with good numbers and resources)

http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/memag/Medical+Economics/Perspective-The-AMA-flexes-its-legal-muscle/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/501532 (An article about the AMA going against private insurance companies)

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/ (AMNews, the weekly newspaper of the AMA, which often has interesting lttes and articles on what it's like to be a doctor and what the AMA is trying to get done in Washington)

[Lorien]

144. There's a big difference between National Health insurance and universal

health care. Let's cut out the middleman!

[bobbolink]

152. "Let's cut out the middleman!" Getting out my scissors...

:)

[poppysgal]

154. Biggest scam ever

health insurance-its sad :nuke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

160. Oh course they do

But once you get into the details, opposition will develop.