66% of Practicing Physicians in Massachusetts don't want Single Payer.

NB: I am in favor of Single Payer. I do not favor cherry picking statistics - to give an altogether misleading reading of a very detailed survey. In the report cited below only 34% of respondents favored single payer.

The highest support for single payer was physicians over 55 with 40% (60% preferring a different model)
The lowest support was physicians aged 35 and under was 29% (71% supporting different model)

To suggest a move to single payer would receive vast support from the medical profession is at best misplaced:

Source: http://www.massmed.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=36166
pp 86 - 90.

Once upon a time, going into medicine was a challenge that many undertook because they were genuinely interested in helping others. Most of the doctors from the WWII generation that I've known have had that mindset. Now the overwhelming motivation for being a doctor is to make a mid six figure (and above) salary. It's the same attitudinal shift towards greed that we've seen in just about every other sector of American life over the past few decades.

He was one of the good ones - very proud of him and I miss him dreadfully. :hi:

The survey indicates that 66% support either single payer outright or a choice for a Medicare-like option.

It is system that KEEPS private insurance.

Like Medicare, it is not a universal single payer system but, nonetheless, it is a single payer system.

Including four years of pre-med and several friends of various ages who are doctors. I can count on one hand the number of people I've seen go into medicine in the past decade or two who were not doing it primarily for the money.

But it is in Massachusetts the state that has the best working model of universal health care in America. So I would not expect anyone who lives in that state to want to rock the boat with something that is working.

Rather 66% of physicians support single payer outright or support the right of citizens to choose a Medicare-like option.

Single means Single.

that would compete with private plans.

Technically, allowing private insurance as an option does not mean a single payer system but your OP completely ignores the fact the the vast majority of physicians support either a single payer system or the option of choosing a Medicare-like (i.e., single payer) option.

Then any physician who picks 35% should have to retake his licensing exam.

I'm not very smart could you tell me what the MLR is exactly.

but I don't see how that would be relevant here.

it means Medicare Listed Rates

That is the percent of the premium that does not go to Doctors.

In Single Payor systems it runs about 5-6%

For federal employees those plans run about 15%

For private health insurance in the US it runs 36%

Doctors that are against Single payer are allowing another profit center in between them and their patients.

They are allowing the insurance companies to rob them.

From your link:

Which of the following options should be included in U.S. health care reform (Please read each of the the following options carefully and check only one.)

1. Single-payer national health care system offering universal health care to U.S. residents~~ 34%
2. Both public and private plans with a public buy-in option (allow businesses and individuals to enroll in a public Medicare-like health insurance plan that would compete with private plans)~~32%
3. Keep existing mix of public and private....... 17%
4. Model health care reform blah blah blah.... 14%
5. Other... 3%



Note that physicians could make only one choice out of 5. 34% chose single payer only and 32% chose the freedom to opt for single payer; that is, Medicare-like health insurance.

If you posted that during the Health Care Reform debate here, you'd be laughed off the boards.

(allow businesses and individuals to enroll in a public Medicare-like health insurance plan that would compete with private plans)~~32%




A Medicare-like health insurance plan that would compete with private plans is a single payer option.


Compete with private insurance.

Single payer does not "compete with private plans", it is a universal baseline covering the entire population that pay to a SINGLE ENTITY. A real public option, a Medicare buy-in, would be miles better than the current "reform" - and we almost got it for over 50's then Lieberman welshed on the deal. But an "option" is not single payer, period.

.......sir.

Single payer is when the government pays for health care. It eschews the middle man. If businesses have the option to buy into a Medicare-like system, then they have the option to buy into a single-payer system. Just like businesses currently contribute to the single payer Medicare system. Canada has a single payer system. It also has companies that offer private insurance.

It's possible they could be for BOTH single payer and private+public buy in option, but prefer buy in option.

is what it sounds like there is only one option the government insurance like England.

Here in the UK, we have a state-run (not just state-funded) NHS, and we also have private health-care providers and insurers that one can spend money on if one wishes.

It is universally available, but it is possible, and not that uncommon, for people to get private insurance, as individuals or through workplace schemes.

income to barely subsistance levels like Medicare and Medicaid does.

If it came with forgiveness for all those loans, maybe.

Medicare pays plenty. For example, interventional cardiologists make $500k a year, and most of that's from Medicare.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/6-07-19-ReductionInMedicare.htm
-snip
July 19, 2006 - Forty-five percent of physicians in the American Medical Association plan to decrease or stop the acceptance of new Medicare beneficiaries and TRICARE members if Congress does not act to stop a 5% decrease in Medicare physician payments that is scheduled to take effect in 2007, AMA President Jeremy Lazarus said on Tuesday, the AP/South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.


-snip
"Over the next nine years, Medicare will cut physician payments 37% unless Congress acts before Jan. 1, 2007," adding, "At the same time, the cost of caring for those patients will increase 22% -- and that math just doesn't add up."

PCPs do fine on Medicare, but they get paid more by private insurers, and they'd rather make, say, $175k than $125k. They also have a specialty that sees lots of under-65s, so they have the luxury of declining Medicare.

PCPs are about the lowes-paid docs. But they still earn far more than their counterparts in other countries.

Doctors are entitled to express their opinion about their preferences. I'm sure those preferences are colored by their assessment of what best serves their interests. That's just human nature.

Doctors are qualified to make recommendations regarding a course of treatment. They are neither trained nor qualified to render an opinion regarding how to structure payment for and access to that treatment for us ordinary less god-like folks.

I too have a stake in the healthcare system. As a healthcare consumer (I use that term loosely since I have not seen a doctor in over 15 years) my stake is arguably far more significant than that of some self-interested vendor who earns a livlihood by tending to my quality of life and physical existence.

Single payer was not the first choice for 66% of physicians - they could only pick one option. But they didn't reject single payer. There was no question on the survey that asked if they reject it.

Another way to look at it was 66% preferred either single payer or a public option - in other words, 66% prefer systems proven to be superior to what we have now, which makes sense.

Also note that socialized medicine was not a choice.

:(

I don't know of any country in the world which has government provided insurance as an alternative to pivate insurance. Do you? Australia has both private and public insurance, but it's really a single payer system with private alternatives and Japan has public insurance for the elderly and unemployed, somewhat like we do, but the only other nations I know of with government health insurance are the single payer systems in Canada, Taiwan, and a couple of countries in Eastern Europe. A public option is a nice idea, but I don't think it's ever really been tested.

However, if the public option were the ability to buy into Medicare (which is single-payer for those over 65), Medicare has been shown to offer world-class outcomes.

If it came from the AMA then there you have it.
Just saying and I couldn't find it in the document.

At least in many medical places - do you trust the used car salesman to tell you how many cars you should buy from him?

Hmmmm....


I would love to see how VA doctors answered that question.