BREAKING: US Physicians Enthusiastically Support Public Option

Source: Daily Kos

BREAKING: US Physicians Enthusiastically Support Public Option
by Helenann

Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 02:01:03 PM PDT

At 2:00 pm today, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a new report to the press (embargoed until 5 pm EST) summarizing the views of physicians on the contentious issue of the public option in a reformed health care system.

(Will post a link as soon as it is available)

And you will never guess what the researchers found. In a survey of 6,000 US physicians conducted in April of this year, which covered physicians across all geographic regions of the US and all specialties, researchers found overwhelming support for the public option offered as a CHOICE along side private health insurance plans in health insurance reform.

63% overall support public option and 10% support single payer = 73% support public plan

And even more remarkable, they found NO DIFFERENCE in physician attitudes toward private health insurance compared to Medicare (a single payer, government run program) with respect to:

Physician autonomy in making medical decisions for their patients, or

Getting their patients the care they need.






Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/14/781924/-BREAKING:-US-Physicians-Enthusiastically-Support-Public-Option

---

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=home

Physicians’ Beliefs and U.S. Health Care Reform — A National Survey
Posted by NEJM • September 14th, 2009 •

Ryan M. Antiel, M.A., Farr A. Curlin, M.D., Katherine M. James, M.P.H., and Jon C. Tilburt, M.D., M.P.H.

In an address to the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009, President Barack Obama acknowledged that he needed physicians’ support on health care reform and offered to work with physicians to achieve the reform he believes is essential. In recent months, commentators have called on physicians to be “our most credible and effective leaders of progress toward a new world of coordinated, sensible, outcome-oriented care” and to “find a brave voice” for changing health care’s funding structures in a way that “puts quality of care before financial gain.”1 Are U.S. physicians prepared to play such a part?2

LINK (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1785&query=home

Need to have their licenses taken away.

I gave mine a copy of "Sicko" and she's been in favor of single payer ever since.

He made that quite clear in the primaries.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php

(emphasis mine)

You'll notice that the consistent quote was, "If...starting from scratch, I'd favor a single-payer system but..." then excuses for why it's more important to just improve the current system. It's astounding how people will read "if [specific circumstances] then single payer, but [reason why not to do single payer]" and miss the second half of the sentence.

Same source cited above:
(emphasis mine)

"Legacy systems" clearly refers to to the employer-provided individual private insurance system. If he meant medicare, he wouldn't have given it as an example of why we can't do single-payer.

Obama consistently campaigned on insurance reform as a means to universal coverage--lowering costs as a means of expanding participation.

No other country who has single-payer or Universal Health Care "started from scratch" (except Taiwan -- they chose the Canadian System)...

That's Obama's BIG LIE -- told early and often...

There's a difference between lying and simply being wrong.

when the liar's "smart and clever" enough to know that no other country "started from scratch" and still he repeats the BIG LIE as mitigating circumstances...

Lying by omission is just as heinous as lying by commission...

He's a liar...


But then all Democrats and Republicans (with rare exceptions like Bernie Sanders, Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich) are liars.

He gives reasons (albeit terrible ones) about why we shouldn't go single-payer, not why we can't go single-payer.

as they pay for Cigna or Blue Cross. No problem---except, of course, for Cigna or Blue Cross.

It was about protecting the very health insurance companies that his mother had to call and fight from her death bed?

and bought and sold by Wall Street, the insurance mafia and Big PhRMA...

What's your point?

dotymed's doctor was under the impression that Obama supported single-payer. Obama didn't support single-payer, so I responded to say so.

I think some people get distracted by certain phrases and completely miss the context--when candidate Obama spoke about health-care saying, "If...starting from scratch, I'd favor a single-payer system but..." then excuses for why it's more important to just improve the current system" they hear "............I'd favor a single-payer system..............................." and miss the part where he says that he doesn't support single-payer.

It's like someone seeing a shiny new penny on the sidewalk and picking it up and failing to notice someone being stabbed five feet away.

"if starting from scratch..."

That statement makes people assume that the rest of the civilized world woke up one day and said, "gee, we don't have any health care. Whatever will we do?" and then decided to do Universal, Comprehensive Coverage as a human right.

It sets up a frame as George Lakoff and Mr. Luntz would say, a fallacious frame, for someone as slimy as Obama to use to slip out of the following statement, "I'd favor a single-payer system."

It's the dirtiest, most insidious form of lie -- Karl Rove would be proud of Mr. Obama's prowess in that area.

And Obama's still doing it. He's beginning to make Slick Willie look like an amateur...

One is a dishonest way of framing a debate, the other is an outright lie. Obama's guilty of the former, not the latter.

difference, IMO, either in practical reality or in morality.

I'm not sure he was deceptive, though.

It's from Obama's campaign website and it has the "starting from scratch" line. It's a fantastic collection of how Obama duped people into believing that he supports single payer while saying that he doesn't. People eager to hear 'single-payer' latched on to that and ignored the rest.

The other countries didn't have to start from scratch, they simply implemented single payer on top of what they already had. There's no reason why we can't do that here. If HR 676 passed the House and a similar version passed the Senate, barring Presidential veto, we'd implement single payer system on top of the colossal failure of a health-care system we have now.

website would have been revised from time to ime to reflect the latest iteration, but something earlier may have been captured on YOu Tube. Just a thought.

His position in the primaries was never single-payer. Maybe someone claiming that it was would like to take a turn backing up their claim.

What the hell do they know about health care - oh, errr, uh, oops, nevermind...

I sure wish the MSM would put this news on their endless loop. Maybe then some of these poor misguided fools would start thinking instead of just reacting.

.... "But physicians aren't the same as doctors..."

Rofl:rofl:

A very good example of a picture telling a thousand words.

Like they did with the percent of Canadians who are satisfied with their system

Hannity and Beck will simply say "73% are AGAINST the public plan" Done. The sheep will baaaaaw down. They don't listen to any other 'librul' media to hear any different and even if they did (which would mean that those stations actually brought this information to the public) they would ask themselves *who ya gonna believe? The most watched and fair and balanced News Channel or those other Obama ass kisser stations*

hope i have this covered...kp

they are happy.

would not tolerate. Their cost of education is huge. They have high physical risk from disease, they have to be really smart and think on their feet. They provide a needed service and aren't just paper pushers. I don't have a problem with them having nice homes and cars. Hell, I support them having their education paid.

I just think the government should pay their bills, not insurance companies.

and be capped at about 100K per year with COL adjustments if they live in places like NYC or San Fran. No one should go into healing to be rich. Vets do the same schooling if not more and earn a fraction of the salary.

If they were Gov't employees, they would belong to UNIONS. HINT. 40 hour work weeks, overtime. Other bennies. Wouldn't $100,000 a year look SO much better if you weren't saddled with a few hundred grand in school debt, and didn't have to work RIDICULOUS hours... and be able to file grievances with a Union rep against Hospitals, etc.

:shrug:

Of course part of the reason doctor's get such huge salaries is that they hand a significant portion over to THEIR insurance, in case they get sued for malpractice. The structure of parasitic legal and insurance industries that feed off our current medical systems are the main ones responsible for bleeding it dry.

There are many places where it's difficult for a woman to find an OB-Gyn because the insurance costs make it impossible for doctors to practice.

There are definitely loads of incredibly arrogant doctors out there, but I don't think they're responsible for the breakdown of the system.

up on basic business info before simply repeating already debunked talking points.

Congratulations on your spelling though.

Remember that? No, not Obama. That was your friend GWB.

I get into this discussion with a friend of mine who is an anesthesiologist opposed to any reform except tort reform and lawyer friend who represents patients in malpractice suits.

While malpractice insurance and suits need to be addressed, they HARDLY account for being "the main ones responsible for bleeding it dry". It's about 4% of overall costs in health care. To an MD, I am sure it is over 4% of their salaries. The hospitals and large practice groups usually to cover that for the docs that work in their systems, a huge part of the reason we don't see too many independent practices anymore which is bad.

I'm all for throwing suits out of court (if they even should get that far) for a doc getting sued because her patient got lung cancer after smoking cigarettes all his life. But errors can change a patient's life and they need to have recourse. Removing the recourse of harmed patients is not going to solve our current health care problems.

No matter. Obama has asked that tort reform be addressed in his new plan so you're in luck.

Lawyers have to pay for malpractice insurance too. And it's way easier to second guess a lawyer.

$14 per month -- it's included in their medical association dues...

Single-Payer...

an underpaid teacher.

All workers are valuable, but it's nuts that sports figures get paid more than doctors.

Vets begin practice immediately after graduating from Vet school. Physicians must complete a residency program (minimum of 3 and up to 9 years) in order to practice and hold hospital admitting privileges. Physicians are at the mercy of insurance companies for reimbursement; very few vets are in the same boat (consider: how many people do you know who carry health insurance on their pets?). I know many vets who make considerably more than I do. There are also innumerable regulations that govern the practice of medicine, and don't even get me started on liability insurance-- what I pay per year is twice the income of the average 4-member family in the U.S. I do well financially as a physician, but I do NOT live the cushy life you imply in your earlier post; I work from 8:00 to 6:00 most days, and drive home to my 2000sf house in a Toyota.

Veterinarians have residency as well and then when they're done the vast majority get to start at about a 3rd of what dr's make.

She said there is no residency unless they choose to specialize.

an oncology vet. I think about 40% of vets pursue residency or higher education so its not quite as many as dr's, but still quite a view. The vet school bills are still tremendous though. She left with close to 200K in debt.

Thanks for your post. Doctors should not be vilified anywhere in this debate. It is my experience that Doctors are only a small percentage of health care costs. When I ended up in ICU the neurosurgeon only got about 10,000 out of a bill of over 150,000. And I think we all appreciate the years of denial it takes to get into the profession. My opinion is that pediatricians and GPs are poorly paid for their long hours. I grew up in a small town and my own Doctor left for a teaching position so he wouldn't have to put in 70 hours a week anymore. My own father was a large animal veterinarian and we lived at the poverty line for a long time and wouldn't have made it except for the government programs of testing for Brucellosis and TB. It was $1.00 a head for Brucellosis and .60 for TB in the 60's. Last I heard it was still a buck. At least in small towns doctors never refused a patient and there income went up when medicare was passed because they got paid for the patients who they were seeing for free. I wish I could find some good research on medical malpractice rates and find out why its so expensive.
I do know tort reform has had no effect in some states on this cost At the very least we need some way of dealing with these insurance costs if we are to have enough primary care physicians and OBGYNs. Perhaps we need a public option for malpractice insurance.

continuing education requirements, liability, etc. They should be well rewarded for providing good patient care.

And vets do not have nearly the same stress levels, exposure to disease, and educational requirements, working hours, continuing education reqs etc.

I love vets, but I don't think so.

If we were to cap 4 hour workday corporate executives and push their money into healthcare, housing, and education that would be just. Cap docs at 100k? lol.

average worker. 4.5 day work weeks with golf after noon on Friday definitely help. I also have a few friends who got their education from places like The University of the Caribbean. I recommend everyone always check those diplomas on the wall.

Vets education requirements may be more massive in scale than dr's considering domestic animal physiologies and ailments differ.

Like I said, no one should go to med school to become rich and get a trophy wife. I saw it far too often when I was in school. Frat boy with a dr.father talking about how he's going to have a new benz and mcmansion.

Oh, and how long does it take to pay off that debt at 500K a year.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/economy/healthcare_doctors_shortage/index.htm

with this pay scale:
http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/SLST-AprilandBeyond.asp

Most vets don't do a residency. Both med and vet schools are 4 years. The vast majority of physicians do residencies, with the average length of 4 years. Therefore physicians do not start making decent money until they are 31. They are 8 years behind most college graduates and have an average of $130,000 in debt before they even start practice. There is also very little liability tied to vet medicine. That is why their malpractice insurance is very low. Finally, taking care of a sick child is infinitely more stressful than caring for the family kitty. I agree that physicians should not do it for the money but most family physicians, the backbone of our health care system, are not getting rich.

wait for it....specialties. Because that is where the money is! Family physicians are a dying breed. You know the old joke: If you can't get into vet school, become a dr. :)

Some info:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/economy/healthcare_doctors_shortage/index.htm

90% of med students are becoming specialists.

""A specialist can earn $500,000 or more a year and work 20 hours a week versus a family doctor who earns on average $120,000 a year and works more than 60 hours a week," said Weiner."

The most popular (or at least the busiest) Cardio. Surgeon here was turned down for Vet. School.
It's probably changed a lot since my Dad was a Vet. back in the 40's & 50's, but he gave it up because he couldn't make enough money to support a family. I haven't met any Doctors around here that are in that situation. The Colorectal Surgeon who operated on my wife is a good Surgeon, but every time that I see him he's complaining that he's barely scraping by. This is from someone who drives an BMW M3 in the winter so that he doesn't get his $80,000 BMW dirty. He's a good person, but that bothers me every time he starts complaining about the low pay he makes.

Their version of scraping by is different from most others peoples.

Doctors get only about 10% of the health care dollar so cutting their earnings would have a very small impact on health care costs. As I understand it the bill reported out of the health committee would raise primary care physicians payments. $100,000.00 a year would barely cover the malpractice insurance. Of course I suspect there's very little competition in the medical malpractice field and that the rates are probably overpriced.

and also paid them for all the hours they do on call without getting paid. And while their at it pay for their mal-practice. Plus the ten years or so after undergrad that they are in school year round and not earning more than a stipend. Most of their friends are already working and playing for those years (and traveling and buying those stereo systems). My husband has been working now full time for 25 years and we have kids who are about to go to college where we will get no discount so public college it will be. Plus because he is in private pratice he has to buy his own health care insurance which we pay $12,000 a year for catastrophic and pay for all dental, orthodontics, glasses and eye check-ups and while other kids are getting physical therapy for sports injuries ours are not because that's not covered Plus if you live in a small town and make a mistake everyone knows, and if your wife is a little outspoken it can very much effect his job (this is so hard for me because of some very conservative beliefs and what I call a lack of education in our schools!). We live comfortably because we decided we wanted him to have a life with our three kids and moved to a small town. But living in a small town you also see the community needs and we have given so much in our volunteer time and money to help it. So not all doctors are living off the high horse from what they make. My husband is willing to make less so that more are insured and also we would be in the category of paying more taxes and are willing to do that. I'm a nurse and both of us see health care as being a basic right so what ever it takes to cover this right is what we all need to do!

Surgeon or pyschiatrist, just for an example:

13 years K to 12

04 years college

04 years med school

01 year internship

05 years residency.

That's 27 years of school/training, making them around 32 (very tired and deeply in debt) before they are ready to operate or shrink in private practice.


For neurosurgery, add another 5 years to the residency, bringing it to 32 years of education and about 37 years of age.


And during the non-school years, they are working 36 hour shifts sometimes. Of course, the profession could change that part of it if it chose, but it doesn't. " Sure, it increases risk to patients, but we had to go through it and so do you. ...." is about the mentality. Every now and again, the state threatens to pass a law reducing the shifts and the AMA says, "Oh, no, let us police ourselves." And the state backs off.

So what. If some exhausted surgery resident lops off your left arm instead of your right one, you can always sue.

Oh, wait. Maybe not. That's where tort "reform" comes in to help the docs' and hospitals; malpracticce insurance companies.

So, the profession gets what it wants, the doctors eventually get what they want, the insurers always get what the want and the armless guy can just sit in a corner and twiddle his thumbs.


Oh, wait....

Oncologists I worked with at an outpatient cancer center worked the same hours we did.

But I imagine we all cull particular anecdotal memories to better validate our opinions; i.e. some people see doctors as friends, family, and co-workers, while others may perceive them as an elite class...

the same hours as you. Did they not do hospital rounds? The oncology group I used to work for were in the office 9-5 and at the hospital 5-8 a.m. doing consultations and rounds and sometimes in the evening too and took turns working weekends in addition to their regular schedule.

significantly different from each other. But maybe people who go through so much to be licensed and have people's lives in their hands--often literally--have a right to knock off early on Wednesday.

Today, the system is considered one of the best in the world.

This is so important. Please share this as much as possible. Facts like this should not be ignored.

Kudos to the NEJM for getting this crucial information out in a timely manner.

And by the way--welcome to DU!

:hi:

They had better plaster it on the front page of every newspaper, push the media until they tell the truth and squeeze it into every on air interview that a Democrat is invited to.

I want to see the right wing monster spin this one.

and call them in the morning.

Thank heaven they came out for this!

:+

public option.

Actually, if they cared, and were informed, they'd fully support single-payer.

Of the 60 or so physicians, family practice docs, and residents I work with, only THREE (admitting they are Republicans and don't like Obama) have said they don't want reform. Of the remainder, the large majority have been not only in favor of a public option, but way in favor of single-payer.

Additionally, I have asked the numerous specialists and docs my family sees for care what they think of insurance and not one of them, NOT ONE, have said they think the system works. They all admit we need reform and may or may not agree on single payer, but they do think insurance needs regulation or be taken out of the equation.

This poll is not at all surprising to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thank you for this post!

With doctors backing the public option, the tea baggers would not stand a chance.

Somewhat redeeming news too, at least IMO.

Julie

and should change some minds.

the docs who I know hate having to deal with all health insurance comps' paperwork and their demands

Our doctors in this country are hosed as bad as anyone else by our current system. Their reimbursements keep dwindling and they have to fight for every penny they get, while at the same time they are trying to make their student loan payments and (rising) malpractice premiums. The fact that their patients can't afford preventive care means that they come in sicker and take a lot more time, money, and resources to treat. It's like the deck is stacked against them.

So, yeah, just because doctors "make a lot of money", don't think they're behind the status quo. They are not, for the most part.

Well who says they are American physicians? First show me their birth certificates!



:sarcasm:

:woohoo:

and the Obama Administration needs to put the onus where it belongs: the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the lawyer lobby that wants no part of tort reform. I hope that Obama changes his mind because he has disappointed many physicians by not supporting tort reform that is also crippling our health care system. If doctors terrorize patients about not treating them because they decided to go for the public option, then exclude these doctors from Medicare and Medicaid, too.

solidly behind public option-- not only because it is the morally and ethically appropriate thing to do, but also because I'm tired of having Big Insurance run my practice. I want to see THEM over a barrel for a change!

to the doctors (on this board and not) who are in support of this. May it become a reality.

you think.

One lawyer proves that, for one specific human being, under a specific set of circumstances, an X Ray should have been taken, but wasn't and the patient died or was otherwise injured because the XRay was not orderd. And that proof will win the lawsuit.

Then, your insurer will require an X-Ray for everyone who walks in so that it will never again lose a lawsuit for lack of that X-Ray. (OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by too much.)

It is not the lawyers who are requiring excessive tests. They have no power to do that. It's insurers, to protect themselves, but they make the lawyers the scapegoats.

Lawyers sue on behalf of a person who is injured or dead because a doctor should have picked up on something and didn't. And by should have, I mean in accordance with the standards of the profession, or of a "reasonable" doctor. That does not mean every conceivable test and procedure in the world. I am not thrilled about denying a patient or his or her survivors compensation for things a doctor should have caught, acing in accordance with the standards of the profession.

Maybe the profession and the insurers, working with each other, could do a lot to set professional standards and eliminate the excess tests and procedures.

State law governs most medical malpractice lawsuits anyway. Sure, federal law could supersede all state malpractice laws, but that is not necessary. Insurers and the med. profession could strong arm state legislatures. For instance, in my state, a patient claiming malpractice has to clear a 3 physician panel or they have no right to a lawsuit. And, before taking a case, a lawyer will hire at least one doctor to review everything to see how likely it is that the case will pass muster with the panel. So at least 3 or 4 doctors would have to say, "yup, s/he was careless with this patient" before the case even proceeds.

Well, if 3 or 4 docs say that, the patient's injury or death is pretty likely to be the result of carelessness. Why should that patient not get compensated? Another thing that just occurred to me is that there could be one board that decides the amount of compensation, instead of leaving it to juries. Then, awards would at least have some kind of consistency. Again, state law could handle it, unless there is some state constitutional provision that prevents it.

I guess I am trying to say (cliche warning) there is more than one way to skin a cat.

As far as your premiums, that, too, is the insurer. I bet you could gag every lawyer in the country and your premium would not go down. (On edit: As I kept reading the thread, I saw posts that tend to confirm my guess. I think they were 69 and 101. If I keep reading I may see more.)

If it's any consolation, lawyers have to pay insurers as much for legal malpractice as doctors have to pay for medical malpractice insurance.

Lucky I work for her :)

more reality for Republicons to deny.

And at least the public option.

The physicians and consultants serve both the NHS and the private insurers - its in their interest to do so.

If they can't understand this I don't want them anywhere near my prostrate.

See...we doctors really do CARE :)

is a change and I always think about past doctors fondly, going all the way back to Dr. Tatarian, who is the very first one I can recall (RIP).

Hope that makes you feel better! (Come to think of it, I never tell them that. I should start.)

Like those damned socialist-communist-Marxist doctors know anything! :crazy: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

As always, thanks, kpete, for the class-A post. An easy kick and a BIG recommend! :thumbsup:

reframing the debate at the joint session. I am more confident now that we will get at a minimum a public option out of the reform legislation but we cannot be still about this. Call write and FAX your congress people and tell them you demand a Public Option because there has to be a choice and right now Insurance corps leave you no choice but the status quo.

statistics lean even more in our favor over time. All we have to do is screen our physicians by where they stand on this issue. If they oppose ANY public option whatsoever, then let them serve only RWers.

Yeah, I'm calling for a BOYCOTT of anti-public-option physicians.

:kick:

33% of scientists claim republican status.

It follows that docs would have similar stats, as they too are scientists.

My two douchebags in Congress, Gingrey and Price, BOTH doctors, both AGAINST any change. BOTH of the bastards were at the Klan meeting in Washington on the 12th.

So? Has anyone tried to tally up the docs in Congress? I'd like to then run a check on the ones against, and see just how many times they were sued for malpractice LOL!

Still, it is good that this was reported, although I'm not surprised. Doctors should have unions now to protect them against the HMO's that control them.

damn fine doctors.

No doubt they're still trying to figure out how to pin the Communist label on the AMA...

Hell, even UPI has reported on it...but I can't find any AP mention.

I mean if they cared so much why aren't they picketing the streets for it. Or trying to get on national television to make their case. I haven't seen many reported efforts of Doctors getting together to support the PO. I have seen and heard of them doing it for single payer.

... than playing at political activist ...

> I mean if they cared so much why aren't they picketing the streets for it

Maybe you want doctors who spend their hours on blogs or jawboning with
the whores in government over exhorbitant meals?

I want one who can do his or her job to the best of their ability and at
the time & place that it is needed, not someone who will cancel appointments
because they think that "picketing the streets" will be a better use of
their time ...

:shrug:

That's like saying to me----I'd rather women be home makers and raise the children than fighting for their rights. You act this stuff is mutually exclusive when it's not. They are tied to this because this effects their work, livelihood and of course the livelihood and care afforded by their patients.

So yeah, I would expect them to make a point in supporting this if they are after change or at least some sort of change. Secondly, you'll not in my post that I have seen them---many of them strongly support single payer---that being the case I find your statement ridiculous.

BTW, I'm ignoring your strawman about "home makers".

> You act this stuff is mutually exclusive when it's not.

Why yes, yes it is. I think doctors are truly wonderful people but they
are still only human and, as such, a doctor can only be in one place at
a time.

I simply expressed my opinion that the "one place" I'd prefer to find
a doctor is in the surgery rather than "picketing the streets". YMMV.
You are welcome to hold an opinion that my opinion is "ridiculous".

I have no doubt that a large number of doctors want change from the current
system (whether to single payer or any half-baked compromise that falls
out of the political sausage-machine) as the current system is basically
crap.

Doctors are intelligent people and can recognise this every bit as well
as any political activist. My point was that they should not be wasting
their valuable time with pointless "protests" or "agitating" as that
just makes the existing crap healthcare system even less efficient.
It's not as if the "activists" could step into surgery for a few hours
to cover them is it? Besides, with the state of the US media, it's not
about "Who does what" but "Who decides what is to be broadcast".

:shrug:

(Note: The above assumes that you are talking about active duty doctors
rather than retired ones. If you were meaning to get the retired doctors
out into view then I am totally with you on that!)

K&R

ironically, when he was still alive, my father the doctor (moderate-liberal) was staunchly against any kind of government plan, although he was desperate to see some kind of reform, especially in malpractice insurance...Somehow he got it in his head that it was going to cost too much and cut his salary...

Not sure how he would have felt now; we last discussed it 2-3 years ago...

K&R

NPR is covering the survey now as well:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839232

I sent an email to Rachel Maddow with a link to the survey on NEJM's home page too...

:toast:

:shrug:

They really should. Less paperwork for them if they can get everyone insured and treated.

:kick:

Sonia

keep 8% of the money that is legitimately ours. With single payer/public option, we can bill from our office instead of relying in a billing company to go after the many insurance companies that deny, deny, deny care and payment.

Why don't the Rs support cutting out the "middle man" i.e. the parasites. They do nothing but handle paperwork in the middle of you and your physician.

Sonia

Let's get rid of the parasitic infection!

Doctors are not the real problem here - an entire industry making itself rich by playing middle man, and gambling, knowing they're the house... - that's the problem.

Heaven forbid the congresscritters' insurance and health lobby's slush funds should dry up, no matter what the doctors say. :puke:

On a personal note, I've been helping my mother, who has Alzheimer's, with her bills for a year now and Medicare is a godsend. However, it is not at all free---she pays a pretty good sized premium each month to "AARP Medicare," and also pays out-of-pocket about 1/2 the cost of each bill for each service rendered and for meds.