[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Up from 49% in 2002. Story here.
Of course they’re doctors, not economists, dammit, but, still, isn’t this a rather persuasive statistic?
[/QUOTE]
The article is vague, are they talking about a national insurance policy or universal health care? One is a requirement for people to get insurance and one is a tax funded health rationing system.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
The article is vague, are they talking about a national insurance policy or universal health care? One is a requirement for people to get insurance and one is a tax funded health rationing system.
[/QUOTE]
I would want to look at the actual study to figure out what they are saying.
I found this, which is apparently from an earlier related survey.
So apparently the survey does make a distinction along the lines you ask.
I suppose we should figure out exactly what “universal health care” actually means.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Since we can be pretty confident that some doctors would directly benefit from UHC and other doctors would directly suffer from UHC, the fact that 60% of a self-selected group of doctors think that UHC is a good idea, and 30% think it’s a bad idea is not very persuasive that UHC in general is a good idea.
[/quote]
No, that premise is totally insufficient for that conclusion.
No, your objection is not reasonable. It is not based on any facts we know. You’ve merely asserted that a policy which may well be against the majority of their interests in the opposite. The rest is just your hand-waving about burdens (an argument that even if relevant I already addressed).
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
No, that premise is totally insufficient for that conclusion.
No, your objection is not reasonable.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I’m not going to get sucked into an “is not – is too” debate with you.
Have a nice day.
[QUOTE=gaffa]
Having been a client of the Kaiser, I think I’ll take my chances with an expanded version of Medicare.
[/quote]
Since everyone seems to blame the dreaded “profit motive” on why private insurers are bad, how can it be that a non-profit insurance company is bad, too?
In many states, insurance companies can’t “cherry pick” clients. And for business-provided care, if you take a job you get the health insurance, regardless of your health condition.
I’d like to see a cite that “cherry picking” saves insurance companies a lot of money.
Then please tell me how it’s inaccurate.
As an aside, you’d think that if it were to be full of lies, at least it would conclude that private insurance has a lower administrative cost than Medicare.
Why? As the report illlustrates, old people cost more to care for than young people. If it costs $1000 to treat a young person and $2000 to treat an old person, and the administrative cost for both is $100, it appears that it is more “efficient” to treat the old person. No, it’s just that there is more money being spent to treat the old person.
Too bad that the evidence contradicts you. In fact, it appears that preventative care is no more cost effective than treatment for diseases that occurs once these diseases are evident.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
The article is vague, are they talking about a national insurance policy or universal health care? One is a requirement for people to get insurance and one is a tax funded health rationing system.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m sure they’re not thinking of a British-style National Health Service. Maybe a Canadian-style singler-payer system, but that is not “a tax funded health rationing system.”
The only people that i’ve met who are satisfied with the current system are either those who profit from it, or are affluent enough to hold a very comprehensive private policy.
We barely make ends meet right now, and yet my premiums continue to rise despite the fact that I have not been to the doctor in four years other than my free “wellness checkups”. I used my coverage exactly twice in that period, both for prescription meds that My Uncle who is a MD called in for me.
I basically piss away over 200.00 a month just in case I get into some horrible accident. Nashiitashii is uninsured. We can’t afford to get her a private policy. Her employer on offers benefits to full-timers, and they are talking about repealing those due to cost.
UHC? Bring it on.
“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.”
let us parse this
doctors said, patients suffer - increasing deductibles (an insurance stipulated dollar figure)
doctors said, patients suffer - co-payments (an insurance stipulated dollar figure)
doctors said, patients suffer - restrictions on patient care (a doctors fear of malpractice suit)
A patient arrives at doctors office with complaint(s) with health insurance (doctors did not comment on patients w/o insurance as cash paying patients must not be the problem)
points:
conclusions (dope’m out)
Doctors adversaries are lawyers and insurance companies.
Doctors support of national health insurance does in hopes of shield from his adversaries
Healthcare problem #1 (more to come)
Doctor insurance company and lawyer relationships are broken. (59%)
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
The only people that i’ve met who are satisfied with the current system are either those who profit from it, or are affluent enough to hold a very comprehensive private policy.
We barely make ends meet right now, and yet my premiums continue to rise despite the fact that I have not been to the doctor in four years other than my free “wellness checkups”. I used my coverage exactly twice in that period, both for prescription meds that My Uncle who is a MD called in for me.
I basically piss away over 200.00 a month just in case I get into some horrible accident. Nashiitashii is uninsured. We can’t afford to get her a private policy. Her employer on offers benefits to full-timers, and they are talking about repealing those due to cost.
UHC? Bring it on.
[/QUOTE]
Why is government health care the answer to this problem? I am always amazed at people who are dissatisfied with our current system and automatically assume that because what we have now doesn’t work that means we need to go to a government-payer system. Why? What we have now is 50% funded by the government with the other 50% either distorted through government subsidies (for employer-paid insurance) or heavily regulated by federal and state governments. We have quasi-socialist health care now and the govenrnment distortions, to me, are what are causing most of our problems.
I agree, Acid, that your insurance situation sucks. I’m in the same boat. We’re pissing away our money, too. In fact, my wife and I had to go through some medical stuff recently that was expensive but not covered by insurance. So we got doubly screwed – the money paid to insurance went down the tube and we had to pay out-of-pocket for the stuff we needed.
A better solution, to me, is giving consumers more control over their health care dollars. Moving towards true health insurance (where insurance pays for high-cost, low-probability events, just like other insurance) would lower the price of it dramatically. Then having tax-free savings accounts to pay for other medical expenses.
I want to be in control of my health insurance, but it doesn’t make any economic sense for me to do that today due to stupid tax laws and stupid government regulations. I fail to see how more government involvement in this area would help people in our situation.
[QUOTE=Renob]
Why is government health care the answer to this problem?
[/QUOTE]
For one thing, because it seems to work well enough in other countries, especially Canada. Sure, their system has flaws, with which anybody who reads UHC-related threads is utterly familiar, but on balance it’s much better than what we’ve got in the U.S.
You want the U.S. to take an even more free-market approach to health care, but is there any country on Earth that has gotten better results that way?
[QUOTE=Renob]
I’m not sure how I could have been clearer:
Again, I don’t see how I could have been clearer:
To sum up, yes, doctors have an informed opinion on health care policy. However, their opinion may be tainted by their own interest as well as the biases which arise from being so closely associated with the subject. They may not, in the parlance of our times, “think outside the box.” Their opinion should not be given greater weight than someone else who has an informed opinion on health care policy. So if your Average Joe has some sort of decent knowledge about health care (which most probably do not, considering the level of knowledge that the self-proclaimed “above average Joes” on here demonstrate), then they should be listened to, too.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying that the Average Joes shouldn’t be listened to, but I do think that criticizing doctors for failing to think above their bias might be disingenuous. It may just be me, but I’d rather a doctor’s opinion over a bricklayer on medical matters.
We pay a hell of a lot more and get a hell of a lot less now. We have an inefficient top heavy system. Great coverage for the wealthy and less at every step down the line. At the bottom, none at all.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
For one thing, because it seems to work well enough in other countries, especially Canada. Sure, their system has flaws, with which anybody who reads UHC-related threads is utterly familiar, but on balance it’s much better than what we’ve got in the U.S.
[/quote]
I would disagree that “it’s much better” than what we have here. It has better aspects, I’ll agree, but it also has worse aspects. I may depart from some of my free market brethern here, but I don’t know if we can accurately say that one system is “better” than the other. They are different and do different things well. If you place more value on everyone being covered, then you go with Canada. If you place your value on more patient autonomy, you go with the U.S.
We have gotten worse results the more government has gotten involved in U.S. health care. Again, government has distorted the market to a huge extent producing significant problems. It makes no sense to me that we’d want more government when government has proven to be the problem in many instances.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
We pay a hell of a lot more and get a hell of a lot less now. We have an inefficient top heavy system. Great coverage for the wealthy and less at every step down the line. At the bottom, none at all.
[/QUOTE]
At the bottom is Medicaid, a government single-payer system that produced horrible care.
I’m not criticizing them, I’m simply saying that their bias needs to be kept in mind. I’m also saying that just because a doctor is saying it doesn’t mean it should be taken as having more weight. A doctor may or may not have a good idea to reform health care. Judge the idea, not the one promoting the idea.
If that bricklayer had studied health care policy and had something insightful to say, I’d take that over a doctor who merely regurgitates the AMA’s talking points.
[QUOTE=Renob]
We have gotten worse results the more government has gotten involved in U.S. health care. Again, government has distorted the market to a huge extent producing significant problems. It makes no sense to me that we’d want more government when government has proven to be the problem in many instances.
[/QUOTE]
You’re dodging the question. Is there any country where an even more free-market approach to health care than America’s has produced better results?
[QUOTE=Renob]
If that bricklayer had studied health care policy and had something insightful to say, I’d take that over a doctor who merely regurgitates the AMA’s talking points.
[/QUOTE]
What makes you think the poll respondent’s were regurgitating the AMA’s talking points? The AMA has not endorsed any UHC plan AFAIK.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
You’re dodging the question. Is there any country where an even more free-market approach to health care than America’s has produced better results?
[/QUOTE]
Yea there is. America, 30 years ago.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
You’re dodging the question. Is there any country where an even more free-market approach to health care than America’s has produced better results?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a silly question, in my view. You presume that we need to emulate other nations’ health care systems. You presume they offer better care than we do. You presume that the only way for us to reform our system is to copy the care offered elsewhere. Why not look at what works and what doesn’t work in our nation and go from there? I’d say that’s a lot more relevant than what’s happening in Germany or China.
I was merely saying that taking a hypothetical bricklayer who had studied health care policy and a hypothetical doctor who was only regurgitating the AMA’s talking points (or whatever – Rush Limbaugh’s talking points, if you want), I’d rather listen to the thoughtful bricklayer. My response was an answer to the specific objection raised by Least, not the OP.
[QUOTE=Renob]
It’s a silly question, in my view. You presume that we need to emulate other nations’ health care systems.
[/QUOTE]
No, I presume we need to learn all we can from their examples, good and bad – and the same WRT education, transportation, and a lot of other policy areas. America pays far, far too little attention to how other countries do things.
It’s also a highly relevant question as an example might support (or debunk) your thesis that even-freer-market health care is the way to go. There’s nothing within the U.S. to support that, at any rate.
By the way, a few years ago, the same survey asked doctors if they favor a so-called “single payer” health care plan where health care is paid by the federal government.
26% favored such a plan; 60% opposed it. That’s a pretty wide margin – a bit wider than the margin trumpeted in the original post in this thread.
So anyway, I suppose if we are to put our faith in doctors, we should rule out a single-payer style plan from the get-go.