but her claim that people are lying about wanting to keep their private, employer-based health insurance is troubling indeed.

So there's that.

There are physicians who claim that vaccines are harmful, that abortion is never necessary for the health of a woman...

It's analogous to a podiatrist who is also a spokesman for a shoe company claiming that high heels are good for your feet because none of her patients have experienced a problem wearing them.

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/when-the-doctor-is-a-vaccine-skeptic/513383/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287237222

Why would a medical doctor claim such a thing?

What about these guys?

http://client.prod.iaff.org/#page=AboutUs

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/politics/firefighters-union-against-medicare-for-all/index.html

Link to tweet

not the BS version of medicare for all as proposed in S 1129.

Pramila wrote the damn bill.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/rep-jayapal-and-sen-sanders-have-introduced-medicare-for-all-bills-one-is-a-lot-better-than-the-other.html

https://www.laborforsinglepayer.org/medicare-for-all-is-your-union-on-board/

Just like I'll listen to climate scientists on climate change rather than individual meteorologists who claim to know more about it.

Yes, they have a particular experience with weather, but don't override a consensus of independent climate scientists.

That's not really the right question.

I liked the care that I got in the UK. Do I support it as a concept? Yes.

Do I think that single will work like that here in the US? No.

Especially the platinum plan that Sanders is proposing will happen in two years....

which only serve to leave our dysfunctional, overpriced and under served status quo health care system in place.

You have to give the people something to fight for.

There are no drawbacks to promising what one can't deliver?

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor."

Promising that the US will eliminate fossil fuels in 5 years would be a good idea, then?

private for profit "health" insurance.

There was never any doubt in my mind after the ACA passed while institutionalizing the for profit private "health" insurance industry that promise could not be kept.

The politics simply would not permit it.

Case closed!



Nice evasion of the point I made about grand promises backfiring and being used against the one that makes them...

HR 1384, not BS's version S 1129.

Guess which bill Sullivan prefers and which bill he says has problems.

Pramila wrote the damn bill.

https://www.laborforsinglepayer.org/medicare-for-all-is-your-union-on-board/

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/rep-jayapal-and-sen-sanders-have-introduced-medicare-for-all-bills-one-is-a-lot-better-than-the-other.html

...for decades for their healthcare insurance.

Thankfully my brother retired from a union (CWA) job about 25 years ago, he's got full coverage for life with no co-pays and prescription coverage. He's run up about a million dollars in medical expenses. His out-of-pocket? $Zero.

They're not give that up for any new plan that hasn't even been fully explained yet.

My husband was a union delegate for more than a quarter of a century. It's not unusual for FDNY and NYPD to accept enhanced benefits in lieu of pay increases in contract negotiations. The insurance is part of the compensation package.

...come from union management, not a single comment from a rank and file worker.

Second, Ms. Henry contradicts herself by saying "I really resent the 16 million workers who joined together and bargained for better health plans being pitted against millions of Americans struggling to get healthcare coverage." On the one hand she recognizes that all those millions of union workers bargained for better health plans, i.e., they're NOT going to easily give up all that hard work for an untried, still unspecific "Medicare for All", and union members are not being pitted against millions of non-union workers.

Finally, all the positive comments in that article are in reference to Representative Jayapal's "M4A", which in some ways is significantly different from BS' proposal.

...proposals are significantly different.

There are a lot of words being thrown around, a lot of claims, but are they true?

I fount this interesting from your link:

despite nurses going door to door promoting Medicare for All.

...words, unspecific words.

Five? Ten?

Interesting thing is that lots in that article contradict the premise that some are trying to sell here.

That's 4.7 million members right there.

Despite the NNU (which is a "National" union but not really national) claims the UAW supports it, the article states otherwise:

The UAW, meanwhile, is focused on shoring up the Affordable Care Act, as the future of the health care law plays out in court.



And also the SEIU:



AFL-CIO:



AFT:



And more!

The Excluded Middle fallacy (also known as the False Dilemma or the Either/Or Fallacy).

I'm not surprised it's so commonly used, simply frustrated that people pretend to themselves it's part and parcel of rational thought.

the case with their patients?

One who doesn't have a career as a media personality that benefits from this kind of exposure?

want it to change.

She's stating that Medicare for All is the only way forward, in case you forgot about that part of her statement.

After all, we don't need a doctor to tell us that a lot of people don't like their health insurance.

Perhaps one that doesn't have a career as a media personality that is benefited by exposure from a presidential candidate.

You would say that being a physician gives them equal cred that it does Dr Victoria?

life/job experience.

Why do you assume she supports Bernie first and health care second?

Could it not be the other way around that her medical experiences led her to support Bernie?

Veterans support Bernie, by your logic it can't be because they're anti-war.

Since you couldn't/didn't I will supply you with where doctors stand on Medicare for All.

The biggest objections that medicare professionals have is with the unknown, how much will it cost, concern regarding their own remuneration and government bureaucracy.

I couldn't find any counter to Doctor Dooley's claim regarding "none of her patients' (and she means none of them) ever stated they liked or loved their "health" insurance company.

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Didn't say that. Why do you assume I think that?



Could it not be the other way around that physicians who don't support Bernie are led by their medical experiences, and not simply 'renumeration?"



That's a straw man, but since you attacked him... Physicians that don't agree with Bernie, by your logic, it can't be because they are concerned with health care delivery and quality of care.



I never said nor implied that her patients didn't like their insurance. Attacking straw men doesn't lend credibility to one's positions. Ever.

And even if physicians were the group of professionals with expertise that is behind health policy, health care administration and the economic forces and technology involved, one survey of the readers of Medline doesn't a consensus make. Health policy experts and analysts are the the professionals with the task of evaluating health care reform plans, not career politicians who are known for not being interested in listening to anyone who disagrees with them, no matter their expertise or reputation in their field, especially during campaign season.

Here's an analogy that might make it clearer for you: Delivery and taxi drivers know daily traffic inside and out, where the bottlenecks are, better than anyone, no question. However, they don't have the expertise that Urban planners have concerning public transportation, pedestrian safety, timing of lights, where turn lanes are necessary, street parking, bike lane efficacy, cost/benefits analysis of various combinations of public transportation and road expansion, the impact of self driving vehicles, etc. When you want to evaluate a comprehensive transportation plan involving all those things, you consult urban planners. Surveys of what truck drivers want aren't going to mesh with what bicyclists want to see in a new plan.

But since you asked, here is an example of a physician who doesn't see eye to eye with Senator Sanders:

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2019/03/medicare-for-all-and-the-problem-of-health-care-on-demand.html

Are you going to give this physician the same deference that you give Dr Dooley, as a physician, concerning their profession's ability to make judgements on MFA?

And in addition to political activist orgs like PNHP, there are professional medical orgs that support expansion of the ACA over an overhaul of the entire system.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/ama-says-yes-to-strengthening-aca-no-to-ending-opposition-to-medicare-for-all-single

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2019/03/10/ana-nurses-not-ready-to-follow-union-on-medicare-for-all/#51d709145f43

version of the concept.

Where exactly does BS fit into this picture?

I don't blame her. They destroy her credibility as a source for neutral medical opinion untainted by political bias, and thus damage the credibility of those who cite her as one.

Link to tweet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287237222

Yes, it's ludicrous to think people want to keep their crappy health plans. But Dr "Lock Her Up" Dooley is the wrong person to use as a mouthpiece.

Sid

And trashed Clinton in the 2016 general?

She has never donated to or worked for a campaign. She has trashed Democrats and played her part in helping Trump to become elected.

Dooley has no credibility and third party sources who have worked against democrats shouldn't be here.

This is disqualifying.