Reply With Quote
Damn, you've convinced me.
The government can fix it. They're GREAT at controlling costs!
http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...rpc=22&sp=true
Doctors support universal health care: survey
WASHINGTON (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.
"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."
PATCHWORK
The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.
Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.
An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.
Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.
Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.
"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.
The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.
The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.
I feel sorry for the GOP. They are going to actually try and convince the public that less is more and that we should just trust the free market with healthcare costs..as people's 401(k) plans are shrinking by the day...
Damn, you've convinced me.
The government can fix it. They're GREAT at controlling costs!
My physician brother is about as conservative as one can get, and he sees universal health care as inevitable and necessary.
It's natural that doctors would support a plan to make sure everyone has insurance. The growth of the health insurance industry has allowed doctors to charge a lot more for their services than they could otherwise. With their own costs rising (ie education, medmal, and equipment), it makes sense they'd turn to a guaranteed payor system.
I can't stand the concept of a national insurance system, personally. It will do nothing to curb medical spending, will actually increase the amount of money spent on medical care, but hide it under the au es of tax collection instead of medical expenditure.
Until someone proposes reducing the cost of medical education or medmal to go along with it, I think it's a waste to create a national system.
Then again, I'd rather see a per state system of health care (not insurance, care), since while I may be socialist on some things, I firmly believe in the 10th amendment no one wants to pay any attention to any more.
The government has ed up our health care industry, so let's hand them the keys.
Good post.
I would add, however, that much of the rising cost of medical care is simply part and parcel of the major advancements at life-elongating technologies that have been developed. We cure people of serious illnesses/injuries; which is expensive, at which point they live longer to get more of those...it's an expensive cycle.
Quite true, but there's no solution to those costs except either letting people die or waiting for the cost of those treatments to reduce naturally, at which point there's more new treatments, etc.
Medical expenditures per capita SHOULD increase nearly every year. It not increasing shows a stagnation in the health services industries that is a serious problem, such as reduced life expentency or more people just not getting treatment.
Hopefully they'll figure something out to reduce the base cost of medical treatment. Most people tend to think covering up the problem with insurance is a fix, but its more like a painkiller. It doesn't fix the problem, only dulls the symptoms. We have the same problem with SS in that the system just does not work with an exponentially growing population, but instead of attempting fundamental changes to improve the system, they stick with the "raise taxes/reduce benefits" model to hide its deficiencies.
Also, a MAJOR contributing factor of increasing healthcare costs is the baby boomer bubble aging; older people cost $$$$$$$$ more than younger ones.
Does he support it though?
You would think the use of "necessary" shows at least a little support...
Well, the way I see it is that doctors are people, just like us, and are simply looking out for themselves.
Think about how many people doctors have a difficult time collecting from. Not everyone has insurance. Then, some plans have high deductible. Doctors often have a hard time collecting and must enlist the aide of collection agencies at times. I'll bet more most those doctors wanting the single payer system, they see it as a simpler means of collecting money.
My question is, do they really think it's better if they can take their personal bias out of the equation?
market is higher than it was under clinton. market has ups and downs. why are you so dramatic>I feel sorry for the GOP. They are going to actually try and convince the public that less is more and that we should just trust the free market with healthcare costs..as people's 401(k) plans are shrinking by the day...
Less is more right now for 401k contributors...I feel sorry for the GOP. They are going to actually try and convince the public that less is more and that we should just trust the free market with healthcare costs..as people's 401(k) plans are shrinking by the day...
First of all, if you are near retirement, you are foolish to have your 401k in stocks. They should have been moved some time ago to something more stable.
For those in a 401k now, mostly in stocks, this is an awesome buying opportunity. Let's say your stocks are at 75% of the level they should be at. That means for every three shares value, you actually buy four. When the dollar stops dropping and investors come back top the USA market, those still contributing in stocks in their 401k's will be very happy!
I agree. As Buffett once said, "Bulls make $$, bears make $$, and pigs get slaughtered." In other words, you can still make money when Wall St. is doing badly -- you will just have to pick your investments accordingly.
And ... when the bottom comes, that's a great opportunity to buy good stocks.
Please. No common sense allowed in this section.
Replace with
America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy!
Thank you.
"reduce the base cost of medical treatment"
Too many large corps and others are pocketing those costs as their revenues. That's why the system is so expensive for delivering so little care. They've figured how to make $Bs and gouge the system. They'll fight like now and forever to keep their cheese, just like they did when they killed Hillary's plan in the 90s, quite apart from the good or bad of that plan.
Even minimal change will be extremely difficult. The private insurers won't even come to the table if they can't reserve the right to refuse or cancel customers. That's 100 of $Ms in savings every year. They serve the low-cost young and healthy, and refuse to handle the high-cost old and sick.
LOL...Please. No common sense allowed in this section.
Replace with
Thank you.America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy! America is doomed. Attack the wealthy!
You are right, at least if I want to be a proud member of the Main Stream Media, Communistic Propagandists, or their Liberal Lemmings...
Sorry, I try to stick with the facts. It wasn't an April Fools joke.
Really? Any facts to back those claims up?
How about picking some providers and look at the financial statements through Yahoo, or another source. Look at the net profit margin.
There is plenty of compe ion out there. The problem is, they really are costly. How about some real tort reform so medical malpractice insurance premiums can be reduced, hence, reducing the cost of business? There are other root issues too, but you don't fix a problem by putting a bandage on a symptom. The problems need to be addressed.
Absolutely. I met a good bottom fisher once. Man, I wish I had his talents.
There are a lot of ways to reduce the costs without dealing with the corps at all. Increasing grants and scholarships, as well as ins uting loan forgiveness, for medical education would help. Punitive damage limits on med-mal and increasing regulation of professional liability insurors would help. Tax breaks on the purchase of medical equipment would help. Every single one of those should provide more help then their cost.
Now in a capitalist society, more likely than not costs won't ever decrease, but it should lessen the rate of growth of prices. A side effect is that health insurance rates would not increase as much as well since their liability would not be increasing as much.
And that's why programs like Medicare were created.
Where will the extra money some from? You know those who live paycheck to paycheck? Those who are having a hard time saving any money your suggesting they go out and buy stocks! Brilliant.. when you get back to the real world le t me know...Let's see who has the disposable income to buy more stocks..... hhmmmmm ..Those who have the financial standing to do so!
No knock on the upper income levels but just the facts..so now the income gap can continue to grow.. great plan ! now you and boner di-nasty can go nut hug each other..
Gee the numer of uninsured in Texas has risen since tort reform was passed be the state legislature 4 or 5 yrs ago..capped those damage claims so the evil trial lawyers can't gouge those poor innocent insurance companies..
you guys are ridiculous.
"The problems need to be addressed."
I'm saying the "problems" won't be solved, because the "problems" make $Bs in profits from the current "solution" they have created, and have the $power to block those attacking the "problems".
No candidate is talking about reducing costs, only how to pay the costs. If they talked about reducing costs, the "problems", the providers, would attack them, sooner or later. The providers will counter-attack to maintain the status of their profits, that's why they exist, and why for-profit health system is a disaster. Never fear, the "free market" gave us the current system and will "self-correct", just it does on Wall Street.
Bottom Line: Will health care quality decrease? Yes or No?
I can stomach the 55 hour waiting period among hundreds of ____________ as long as the quality is still there. My father almost died from necrotizing facitis 2 months ago but luckily there were some great doctors who knew what they were doing.
After seeing how quickly you can go from fine to 12 hours away from death over some random bull I will put good health insurance at the top of my list as soon as I can afford it
Last edited by BonnerDynasty; 04-02-2008 at 12:01 PM.
Where will the extra money some from? You know those who live paycheck to paycheck? Those who are having a hard time saving any money your suggesting they go out and buy stocks! Brilliant.. when you get back to the real world le t me know...Let's see who has the disposable income to buy more stocks..... hhmmmmm ..Those who have the financial standing to do so!
No knock on the upper income levels but just the facts..so now the income gap can continue to grow.. great plan ! now you and boner di-nasty can go nut hug each other..
We should increase long term capital gains tax to really stick it to the wealthy too right?
Making it harder for a lower income investor to make it to the "wealthy class" over a long-period of time would just be an inconvenient effect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
