IBD recently polled over 1,300 practicing physicians about their positions on the government’s ideas regarding the healthcare overhaul. The results are pretty clear:
I fully anticipate the response from liberals to be along the lines of “those doctors who would consider quitting are evidently greedy capitalists, are clearly uninformed and this poll is clearly a work of Satan because it was conducted by Inverstors Buisness Daily,” or something of similar intellectual arrogance.
(By the way, IBD commissioned a list of doctors from a list broker. The names of the doctors to whom the polls were mailed were chosen at random. Over 1,300 samples is also a pretty good sample size; Rasmussen polls typically have a sample range of about 1,000.)
Forty-five percent of doctors would consider quitting. I don’t know which statistic is more striking, that nearly half of our doctors would consider no longer practicing medicine, or that two thirds of doctors don’t believe the government can cover 47 million more people at a lower cost and a higher quality of care. Considering that these guys are in fact the front line of medicine, I’m inclined to believe that brushing off their positions on the reforms we seek to undertake would be, bluntly, fucking stupid.
IBD also provided articles detailing the opinions of doctors both for and opposed to reforms. I can’t say either side is significantly more or less in the know than the other. The comments from the doctors who opposed reforms were definately diluted with a lot of anger and empty clammoring about how unamerican socialized medicine is. But some of the doctors polled discussed their experiences working in the healthcare systems of Great Brittain and Canada, and felt that the government’s hand in healthcare made the working conditions (which are already quite stressful for GPs) pretty damn tough.
On the pro-reforms side, many of the doctors embraced the ideology that medicine needs to be extended as a right, not a privelige, not only for moral and ethical reasons, but also because we’re all in the same boat, and we’ll get sick together. However, I was a little doubtful about how well informed the doctors are about the our population and our relative healthcare needs and the availability of such care. One doctor opined that the poorest half of the population gets poor healthcare. I am in the poorest half of the population, and I happen to have fantastic healthcare (BCBX of Texas, and my particular plan is a NFP provider too!). Of course, I’m in my mid-twenties and in fairly good health, and this is not so for everyone.
Regardless of our doctors’ positions on politics and the role of government in medicine(which, if you ask me, doesn’t make a rat’s ass of a difference; if you’re having surgery, what do you care about more: your doctor’s skills as a surgeon, or their political views?) these are our doctors, and we need them to stick around. The bottom line is: whether or not they are greedy capitalist pigs doesn’t matter; good luck getting your higher quality, less expensive medical care when there’s a shortage of doctors.
this poll is clearly a work of Satan because it was conducted by Inverstors Buisness Daily,
Well, it’s not as if IBD is one of the worst right-wing editorial rags out there, with a horrible track record of grossly misrepresenting the things they cite, or who published an editorial stating that Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t stand a chance” with the British NHS, despite the fact that he’s a British citizen and has received NHS care his entire life. Oh wait, yes it is.
As to the poll itself, it’s hard to square these results with this recent poll, showing that 63% of doctors want a public option, and an additional 10% favor single-payer. For many, many reasons why health care polling is tricky, and reporting on such polling is often simplistic, you should be reading FiveThirtyEight.com — they have a really good piece on how dramatically the phrasing of the questions impacts the results of such polls.
Meanwhile, you’re compiling an impressive list of ways to shit on health care reform while pretending you want health care reform. By all means, do continue. You remind me of people of Cincinnati, where I lived for five years: the only thing they hate more than the way things are is the idea of changing anything.
I am in the poorest half of the population, and I happen to have fantastic healthcare
I’m glad you walked that back a bit, because it was starting to sound an awful lot like IGMFU.
So, when you say I’m simultaneously claiming to join in a call for reforms, yet shitting on them at the same time, it’s not as incongruous as you think. I don’t like the way the Obama administration is designing these reforms because I think the truth is that savings will not be generated in the way Obama seems to believe. I sincerely wish the economy worked the way he thinks it will, however, I think he’s in lala land over his ability to redistribute money into this health system.
What do I want? I agree with the doctors who say cut way back on the scope and take it one step at a time. I want reforms broken down into smaller, more manageable pieces, so that if something isn’t working, we halt the presses and fix it before going on to the next policy proposal. I don’t like the 10 year plan. And the thing with government money is that once it’s approved, you can’t get it back, or put it towards another area which may need money. It seems ludicrous to me that we should be confident that there wont be hangups early on that will impede the implementation of the bill and basically turn it into “the big dig” analog for healthcare? THat’s what I want: one foot infront of the other, crawl before you can walk, yadda yadda.
What, am I supposed to be intimidated by you saying that I sound like I’m bragging that I got mine so f*** everyone else? Blow me, man. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that you need only look at the context in which I made that statement to see that I was discussing an inconsistency with the view that healthcare sucks for people in my income bracket as a rule.
Youre not wrong that healthcare is good for those who have it. I generally find that to be the case.
But IGMFU? Dipping into a popularized left-wing meme there, aren’t we
And after all the Barbie bashing you (et al) did when I do the same thing, too. tsk tsk. I’m going to interpret this as virtual hairpulling.
If the left-wing-meme-shoe fits.
The problem with the kind of fix you like is that almost nobody seems to think an incremental approach can work. The system is just too fundamentally flawed. In fact, most of the best criticism of the proposals that are out there complain that they do too little rather than too much — that it’s not radical enough. For example, conservatives and liberals agree that it would be far better to completely sever the link between health insurance and employment (i.e., do away with employer-provided health benefits), but nobody’s seriously considering that option (the Wyden-Bennett bill in the Senate takes steps in that direction, but has little support). And imagine the demagoguery that would ensue then — even if you like your current coverage, you can’t keep it, at least not without paying a whole lot more for it.
But just to humor the discussion, what incremental step would you take first?
Anyway, I’m highly skeptical of the incremental approach. We’ve only been taking that approach for 70 years now, though, so I guess I should just be patient and give it more time.
As for the Big Dig, it’s (rightly) become a whipping-boy for cost overruns and corruption, but how many Bostonians really want the elevated Central Artery back?
I don’t expect health care to be clean or trouble free, either, but “sit on our asses and do nothing” (or virtually nothing) doesn’t strike me as an appealing alternative. Other governments manage to get it right. Why can’t we?
I wouldn’t be so quick to say other governments have gotten it right. There’s certainly a lot to learn, but does anyone have it right? We’ll probably disagree here. And, hey, mind your apples to oranges there, bucko.
What other countries can be compared to ours, really? Huge differences in demographics and overall population and area. Take the Netherlands. I believe they’ve got a pretty high ranking healthcare system, right? Well, the Netherlands is approximately the same size as Massachusetts. The Dutch are more culturally homogenous than we are, and the socioeconomic standards held by the Dutch are not the same as they are here. You can get away with saying we should take note and we would be better off if we thought like these guys and applied their system, but you can’t say it would work here .
What, you want me to admit that no system is perfect? Mea culpa. That’s easy. If it makes you feel better for me to amend my statement to say that “despite problems everywhere, most Western nations manage to do a hell of a lot better job than we do, despite far more governmental involvement,” I have no problem making that clarification.
Anyway, I’m not terribly compelled by the population demographics argument — we’re a bit more diverse than most places, but we’re still 74% white, for the love of Pete.
I’m gonna give you…10 minutes to rethink what you’re saying in that last line before I smack you over the head with it for being a dumbass.
Tick tock, Clarice…
Until african americans and latinos stop claiming that whitey is forcing them to abandon their cultural identity by learning standard english, you have no standing against my population demographics argument. It is obvious that the various cultures in the mixing pot do not all have the same values, thus, that we’re 74% white makes little to no difference, unless you’re saying we should design a healthcare system that works for the majority demographic because it will have equal effects on everyone else in the system. The NAACP and Urban League are already suing institutions with claims of racism, even in places where minorities were at no socioeconomic disadvantage compared to white people. Remove foot from mouth.
Oh, go ahead. It will be amusing to be called out as a dumbass by someone who doesn’t know the difference between “deficit” and “cost.”
And I hope you’ve got something better than the “well-we-eat-more-cheeseburgers” argument.
That’s it? That’s really the best you’ve got? And I’m an idiot? Sheesh! Canada provides universal health care despite having two official languages, never mind the silly “black people talk funny” distraction you’ve introduced. Do you honestly think that the United States is the only nation on Earth with ethnic and cultural issues? Jesus Christ, you need to get out more!
See additions. I have to catch the bus, now, so I’m peacing out. Enjoy playing semantics twister with yourself, there, when you know Obama’s framing of the that statement was pithy camoflage for others like yourself to duck behind.
Blaming your lack of basic reading comprehension on me and Obama. Nice parting shot, I must say.
And Canada’s health care system is in terrible shape. CLinics closing, overcrowding, 12 hour waits to at the ER, that is if they don’t tell you to come back another day.
It’s not the “black people talk funny.” It’s that african american communities are routinely shown to promote a cultural vein that looks down on performing well in school as “acting white.” And schools wont say anything to them because everyone is afraid to call them out on the subject of “black responsibility” – except for Bill Cosby, and Obama (though only half assed)- becuase the NAACP and Urban League will then sue them for being unsensitive racists.
You should really read this.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=285317
The reasoning that it is up to teachers to expect more from minorities as explanation for poorer performance is demonstrably false.
Yes, I should get out more, however, I’ve been around a fair amount for someone of my age, and I’ve seen this scenario repeatedly played out in various locations.
And I missed my bus. Jerkface.
Canada’s health care system has its share of problems, no doubt, but it still manages to rate better than ours. And I don’t suppose you’re prepared to demonstrate that the reason behind that is cultural, hmm? I await that detailed proof in vain, I’m certain.
I’m sensing a pattern here: any time anyone makes any suggestion about health care reform, you’re fully prepared to concoct an excuse as to why it won’t work, why the US is different, why there’s nothing we can learn, and, as I said above, why the only thing worse than what we have would be changing something.
I think there’s a proverb that is somewhat befitting here. It goes something like “most people would rather follow an idiot into the depths of hell than sit around and do nothing.”
I’m not going to deny that I’m kinda likening to a stick in the mud on healthcare reform. But I think your argument boils down to any change would be better than doing nothing at all. You’re more confident than I am that these changes will improve the system than I am. If I thought the reforms would make the system better and not worse off, I’d support them. You’ve admitted previously that there are going to be sacrifices along with these reforms, and I think there will be way more “unintended consequences” than the predictable effects on private insurers. So, yes, I’m very wary of the 10-year plan. Regardless of my reading comprehension, I think the economics Obama is proposing deserves my scruitany. He did say that it wont add to the deficit because it will be paid for along the way by money saved by the reforms that will be introduced? Is that not banking on being able to get a certain amount of money out of the system years down the road? I think he’s over estimating the amount of money that can be drawn in, thus, I don’t think the cost will be covered the way he plans, thus I think it will add to the deficit, thus it will cost us more than one dime.
But I think your argument boils down to any change would be better than doing nothing at all.
That’s untrue, and unfair. Any reform that greatly expands coverage to those who don’t currently have it, and that improves the stability of coverage for people who currently have it is better than nothing. An important difference. I think you’d be hard pressed to find an argument I’ve made that can fairly be characterized as “anything is better than nothing.” In fact, I’ve repeatedly stated that I fear that we’ll get a reform that has an individual mandate but no low-cost options and insufficient subsidies, and that this is something I’d oppose.
He did say that it wont add to the deficit because it will be paid for along the way by money saved by the reforms that will be introduced?
He said that this was true in part, not in full. He has never claimed that it would be fully revenue-neutral, and neither has anyone else, to my knowledge. Everyone acknowledges that there will have to be some tax increases in order to make the plan deficit neutral; the only discussion is over what kind of tax increases, and for whom. The “Cadillac plan” tax you were griping about in another thread is just one example of this.
Yes, it deserves scrutiny. All of it does. But I refuse to let analysis paralysis derail everything, for fear of phantom “unintended consequences.” Every change has unintended consequences. You deal with them as they arise. Unless somebody can point out a specific unintended consequence and make a compelling case that such a consequence tips the overall balance away from “good” and toward “harm,” I think it’s silly to do nothing for fear of some as yet unidentified unintended consequence.
I think he’s over estimating the amount of money that can be drawn in, thus, I don’t think the cost will be covered the way he plans, thus I think it will add to the deficit, thus it will cost us more than one dime.
For the eleventy-billionth time, deficit != cost. If costs exceed revenues (from taxes and fees), then deficit = cost – revenue. If revenues exceed costs, then revenues – costs = surplus. If they’re exactly equal, you’re in balance. Contrary to what you might hear, not all government programs run at a deficit. Social Security has run surpluses for most of its history and continues to do so. (Since the Reagan Administration, we’ve been using those surpluses to mask deficits elsewhere. An ill-advised tactic that resulted in Gore’s common-sense but oft-ridiculed suggestion of a “social security lock box.”)
But health care reform is going to cost us a lot more than one dime even if it never adds a single cent to the deficit. So even if the costs are higher (or the savings lower) than projected, you can still prevent it from adding to the deficit by adjusting the supporting tax structures. Either way, however, it costs us money. On the order of $300 billion to a little over a trillion over ten years, depending on whose estimates you believe. Even the highest estimates, however, amount to less than a 3.5% increase in federal spending. Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing that’s going to bankrupt the country, either.
The bottom line here is that if you’re opposed to any reforms that are going to cost money, then you’re opposed to all reform, whether you want to admit it or not.
You’re arguing with a broken straw-bot repeater. I’ve been hearing that tune and the same noises from repeater radios all over his narrow spectrum bandwidth since the mid 70’s.
I’m sorry, but what does an alleged cultural aversion to high scholastic performance have to do with health care reform again? That shit almost entirely rooted in socioeconomics anyway. It’s not like the white kids in the projects receive markedly greater positive reinforcement about joining the debate club than their across-the-hall, black neighbors do. That’s freaking absurd.
There are general cultural differences between the U.S. and, say, the Nordic countries, but those that are germane to this convo are far deeper than hip-hop infused slang, they’re more along the lines of underlying philosophical views regarding how to measure a healthy society, a healthy distribution of wealth, etc.
I’ve actually never even been to Obama’s health care reform web page. My opinions on health care are my own, and I frankly don’t care whether you believe me on that. You accused me, falsely, of claiming that anything’s better than nothing, and rather than admit you made a false allegation, you decided to follow it up with another one. Always classy! Yet *I’m* a jerkface. X^p
As for CATO, they’re a libertarian think tank whose JOB is to try to find ways to shit on pretty much anything government does. Any organization that would happily abolish public schools is not one worth taking seriously, in my estimation. I have about as much interest in CATO’s hit pieces as you would have in PETA’s.
As to the Jacoby editorial, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to prove. It gripes about individual mandates, which virtually everyone — conservative and liberal — agrees has to be in any reform package if it’s going to work and to avoid the “free rider” problem; and he talks about “deregulating” to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines — an industry canard that actually means allowing insurance companies to bypass individual state regulations and operate under a less-restrictive nationwide standard. So much for “states’ rights.”
Look, you don’t like Obama, I get it. Something about your Massachusetts upbringing has caused you to irrationally and reflexively oppose all things “liberal.” I get that, too. All I’m asking is that you stop pretending to support health care reform when you obviously don’t, and to recognize that your expressed concern for people who don’t have health care coverage may rise to the level of saying “Boy, that sucks,” but doesn’t rise to the level of being willing to to a damn thing about it.
“I’ve actually never even been to Obama’s health care reform web page. My opinions on health care are my own, and I frankly don’t care whether you believe me on that.”
What? You mean you weren’t just repeating a talking point and are ticked off at the assertion that were and subsequent brushing off of your own beliefs based on the reason that they bear the image of a democratic talking point?
you don’t say!
You know…you do this to me all the time, and you think it’s a perfectly relevant point to make in an argument. You might want to think about that.
I have plenty of close friends who don’t have health care. My little sister doesn’t have health care! My dad just lost his job of 25 years. I happen to care about whether the healthcare reforms will make things better for them, or if they’ll get a guilded turd. It’s almost obsolete to think near term since the reforms wont even be put in place for several years, but considering that my health care, too, might also be negatively affected in the future, I’d say it’s unfair for you to characterize my concern as IGMFU.
That it bears resemblance to a Democratic talking point doesn’t really bother me. It would bother me if it bore a resemblance to a talking point with no basis in reality, but that isn’t the case here.
As to you “happen[ing] to care,” that hasn’t seemed to prevent you from opposing pretty much every attempt at reform that’s actually been proposed, while simultaneously failing to state any real, meaningful reform you actually would support. In other words, you support reform in the abstract only. Maybe that’s not the same thing as IGMFU, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s wholly indistinguishable from not supporting reform at all.
I gave you some links at LL. Go forth and educate yourself.
In other words, you say:
I have plenty of close friends who don’t have health care.
OK, good start. Now what are you willing to do about it? Because you haven’t yet demonstrated anything in that regard.
I’ll also say this: when evaluating this proposed reform or that, you’d do well to listen to more than just reform’s obvious detractors.
Jeeze, there were years when I went without healthcare and I didn’t miss a thing. In my 20’s and 30’s when I was working in “Theater” or was between various jobs, or doing “Schwarzarbeit” in Europe. It wasn’t until I was a regular tax-contributor through a regular job with a W-2 and the regular tax-deductions which THAT implies, that some kind of Menu-Medical plan seemed a big deal. Actually all I cared about was the Vision Plan, but we had a HR department who spent all its time gaming the system and making a big to-do about it, every 6-mos was some damn “open-enrolment” meeting – and it factored in as a salary bonus and as a point of leverage when job-hunting after Layoffs too.
When I really “needed” it and was riding fast bikes on twisty roads in the coastal CA mountains I was unemployed and bought a catastrophic coverage-plan with a high deductible – a plan that is illegal today in Massachusetts. It cost $30 a month through Blue Cross. I never had to use it since I didn’t get whacked by oncoming traffic or fly off the side of a mountain.
Meanwhile when gainful employment reared its ugly head, during the next and intervening 20-some years they constantly took my money and I never went to the Hospital for ANYTHING except a tweaked finger that I buggered during an Enduro Race, but I do like my new glasses.
I don’t get what the big pressing need is. I feel like a guy at a Used Car Lot, trying to kick tires and avoid paying for the depreciation some other sucker took on a new vehicle – while being pressured by a slick-haired hustler an ugly plaid coat, that I HAVE to make a decision IN A HURRY OH MY GOD!!-OH MY GOD!! And buy the useless EXTENDED MAYTAG WARRANTY!! And BUY THREE (3) OF THEM!! One of me and one for my non-existent children.
Do you buy the stupid extended warranty when you buy a radio or GPS at Best Buy?? Hell no, only an idiot does that. It’s all gravy to the seller and pretty much worthless otherwise – but I also can go to Reno and not spend a dime in the casino or at a one-armed bandit.
Shorter DirtCrashr: “I’ve never had cancer, so I don’t see why it’s a big deal that there are people who do who can’t get care.”
Dumb and lame, a starwman – not the same at all or even near what I said except in your silted-up imagination – but in terms of insurance, why not have a catastrophic coverage that kicks in for Cancer? And as far as actuarials go, you’d loose the company.
But Dental – just do it, twice a year – go.
“why not have a catastrophic coverage that kicks in for Cancer?”
Because if people “wait ’til it hurts,” it’s a lot more expensive to treat than if you have early detection and treatment, or preferably prevention. The way to lower health care costs isn’t to encourage people to stay away from the doctor until it’s really serious. It’s to encourage them to use low-cost primary care from the start.
Anyway, you may not like my characterization of what you said, but it’s not far from what you wrote. Effectively, “I went without insurance and it worked out just fine for me, so why wouldn’t that be the case for everyone?” Just because you got lucky (or, more accurately, didn’t get unlucky) doesn’t mean that would be the case for others.
We’re all in good hands with all-STATE. You propose a statist solution, but the actual facts are actuarial. I rode well, ride fast (130mph), had a few hairy moments with precautions, but I didn’t take a car in the chin and go to the Happy Riding Grounds. That’s not the case for other people, and yes – it’s actuarial. But about that, since we’re guys (I think), and even though my wife has had a hysterectomy – we will still have to buy pregnancy insurance in our health coverage?
And why not open it up a bi. Since the state Government Insurance is involved (and we all know how well they handle things), YOU need to buy earthquake insurance because despite the fact that early detection of Earthquakes is really an yet-to-be-discovered science (as much as the validity for Global Warming), it could happen as easily west of the Missouri as on the San Andreas fault where I live. And because of the dangers that presents, since I have to buy earthquake insurance here in California, I’ll buy flood insurance also to alleviate the pain of the entire Midwest where the Mississippi and Missouri runs, and we can both buy Tornado and Hurricane insurance – since what happened with Katrina can affect everybody as well. And God help people who live in Oklahoma, they need our money and its kind delivery by the Army Reserves – even though we already pay tax to do just that. Got any droughts? We need everybody to buy insurance against that too. And bugs especially: mosquitoes, the apple moth, various blights, and locusts… MORE!! LETS BUY MORE! And the Government will just print the money.
Shorter DirtCrashr: “Waaaaah! I’m actually expected to contribute to the costs of society!”
More seriously, whether or not the solutions I favor are “statist” depends on how one defines that term. I’m not calling for a British-style NHS or anything. Increased regulation, sure, but total government takeover, no. Contrary to what some believe, not all regulation is evil. As SayUncle likes to say, I don’t want to buy ground beef in Libertopia, where there’s no USDA inspection or safe handling regulations.
Anyway, I don’t see what you have against risk pooling. The whole point behind it is that we don’t know in advance what’s going to befall whom, so everyone chips in and whatever may happen, you’re covered. Sure, you’re never going to need “pregnancy insurance,” but my wife’s never going to have to worry about testicular or prostate cancer, either. The whole point is cost dispersion and actuarial simplicity. Figure out what costs are likely to be incurred by the entire population, and then spread those costs across that entire population. Since about 5% of the population incurs more than half of the total costs, on average, and we don’t know in advance who those 5% are going to be, it allows a level of security, in the aggregate, that wouldn’t otherwise be possible.
Now, you might want to keep spinning the roulette wheel and betting that you won’t be in the 5%, but that doesn’t make it a prudent decision, nor does it mean that the harm would be neatly contained to just you personally if you lose that bet.
Girls, don’t fight; you’re both pretty
You really ARE a Californian! Welcome Brother!!