Up from 49% in 2002. Story here.
Of course they’re doctors, not economists, dammit, but, still, isn’t this a rather persuasive statistic?
I was talking with a doctor friend. He’s a rock-ribbed Republican, I’m a wild-eyed Liberal, but we like and respect each other and have for 25 years.
He’s come around on the need for Universal Health Care.
I doubt it was my influence that did it. He’s an emergency MD and a former editor of the journal of his specialty and consults with the US government on planning for biological attack.
We were talking about the probability of another 1918 flu pandemic. I asked how many he thought would die, 10 million? He said “More”.
I don’t believe the for-profit health care system is capable of stopping a plague.
Why? They are only one segment of the health care sector. Just because they think it would be good for them doesn’t mean that it would be good for patients or those paying the bill (taxpayers).
I’d be curious as to how many of those doctors take patients on Medicaid, which is essentially a universal health care system for people of certain incomes. I know that many doctors don’t participate due to low reimbursement rates and complicated paperwork. What makes them think that any “universal health care” plan would be different?
Persuasive of exactly what?
That UHC might be a good idea, if the doctors think so.
Based on the article, the doctors are supporting UHC because the current system is bad for their patients, not for themselves.
Anything is better than what we have now. If the winds are blowing towards UHC, then we might as well give it a shot. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t rather have the free market do its magic. But we have to do something.
The majority of us have already gotten used to low-cost, inconsistent-quality healthcare. We don’t want to make hard societal changes that could keep health-care free (as in freedom) and high quality. Might as well mandate it for everyone and give mediocrity a chance.
This is what I assume the surveyed doctors were thinking.
Eh? What societal changes would do that?
Actually it stands a much greater chance of being bad for us than good for us (although odds are best it would be neutral*) yet we still want it. Believe it or not many docs actually did go into the field because we care about the health of our populus.
Yes, I take (a limited amount of) Mecidaid patients. And I limit for exactly those reasons.
*True single payor would not be great for most of us but that is not what is being proposed by any of the major players right now. Most people having some sort of insurance that at least covers the basics and that gives people the option of dealing with things before they are ER catastrophes - that we like.
I recall a cite presented in some GD health-care debate or other to the effect that physicians in Canada have a significantly lower average income than physicians in the U.S. Yet Canada has no shortage of doctors.
Bad in what way, though ? After all, doctors aren’t immune to the chance of a family member suffering a terrible accident or contracting an expensive-to-treat disease. If anyone would know that, it would be a doctor; despite what people like to believe, misfortune does not spare the virtuous.
I don’t see why the opinions and/or interests of doctors should be dispositive – or even very persuasive – about what would be good policy.
I imagine that 90% of doctors would support a law doubling standard medicare reimbursements. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such a law is a good idea.
Hey, here’s a modest proposal: Let’s do a survey of auto industry executives to figure out what our policy should be for vehicle safety standards. After all, if you ask them, I’m sure you’ll learn they want what’s best for their customers.
Because no businessman or woman would ever allow his or her judgment to be colored by his own financial interests.
And if a business starts a sentence with the phrase “to better serve you” you can rest assured that the primary goal is to serve you better.
brazil84, can we get a cite for your central assumption that UHC is in physician’s financial interest?
Indeed, the better analogy might be to hearing the heads of the American auto industry stating that they have become convinced that global warming needs to be addressed by tougher CAFE standards.
Again, the sorts of UHC that are being proposed are of little risk to significantly hurt the bottom line of us physicians, but they are of no chance to help it (other than by eventually lowering the cost of our providing healthcare coverage to our employees). Yes, we also worry about our children being able to get health coverage as they become independent adults. Yes, we worry about how the albatross of providing health insurance handicaps businesses such as our own.
But besides the fact that it risks going against our financial interests, the fact that we support reform is significant: we are one of those vested interests that can be oh so obstructionistic. The fact that a majority of us see the need makes that less likely.
Should they not at least be listened to regarding medical policy?
Perhaps, but their views should not necessarily receive some special weight. It’s like listening to teachers when trying to formulate education policy. Yes, they are an important part of the system, but they have their own interests and these interests may not be in line with the interests of those whom they are serving or those who are paying for that service. Sometimes, in fact, it’s better to listen to someone with a little more distance on these issues. Those who are involved in something as a profession may be too deeply involved in the intricacies of that profession to see the big picture or be able to break away from the groupthink which may characterize it.
In short, what doctors say about health care policy should be given consideration, but no more consideration than someone else who has an informed opinion on health care policy.
I’d like to hear how the for profit medical establishment in the US is supposed to handle a 1918 scale flu pandemic. That one killed 20 to 40 million people when the population was smaller and far less mobile. How are we supposed to handle something like that in the age of jet travel?
How can we have a “National” heath care system if it is not also “Universal”? Most new hospitals are being built in areas of fairly low population density and do an excellent job of improving the health of the most well off. But a pandemic usually strikes hardest in areas of high population density and among the poorest.
Just asking.
I find it interesting. I can remember when the AMA would go ballistic at any health care proposal that they viewed as a step on the road to “socialized medicine”.
My assumption is somewhat weaker than that – that doctors have some interest in how health care is provided and funded. Obviously UHC would help some doctors and hurt others. The paper cited in the OP is not available online, but an earlier survey by the same authors found that support for UHC was especially high among doctors in inner cities. One can imagine that those doctors’ patients generally skip out on their bills and the doctors rely on medicaid and other public funding in order to get paid. It seems to me that this sort of doctor would stand to benefit from UHC. On the other hand, there are other plausible reasons why an inner city doctor might support UHC. For example, that sort of medical practice might attract the kind of person who is more likely to support UHC.
Nevertheless, I have learned a few things about human nature over the years. For a large percentage of the population, their view of what would be good policy is informed to a large extent by their own self interests.
So I would say that anyone who wants to claim that these 59% of survey responders are going against their own interests has the burden of proof here.
I agree with Renob 100%.