‘Health law upheld, but health needs still unmet’

[startoverat40]

Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, the law will not remedy the U.S. health crisis, physicians group says

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2012
Contact:
Garrett Adams, M.D., M.P.H., president PNHP
Andrew Coates, M.D., president-elect PNHP
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
See Electronic Press Kit with selected spokesperson bios here. For contacts in nearly every state and major city, contact Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, cell: (312) 622-0996, [email protected], or see www.pnhp.org/stateactions.
The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org). Their signatures appear below.



Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the unfortunate reality is that the law, despite its modest benefits, is not a remedy to our health care crisis: (1) it will not achieve universal coverage, as it leaves at least 26 million uninsured, (2) it will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because of high co-pays and gaps in coverage that leave patients vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of serious illness, and (3) it will not control costs.
Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers' bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs.
In contrast, a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system would provide truly universal, comprehensive coverage; health security for our patients and their families; and cost control. It would do so by replacing private insurers with a single, nonprofit agency like Medicare that pays all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.
Research shows the savings in administrative costs alone under a single-payer plan would amount to $400 billion annually, enough to provide quality coverage to everyone with no overall increase in U.S. health spending.
The major provisions of the ACA do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to "wait and see" how this reform plays out, we've seen how comparable plans have worked in Massachusetts and other states. Those "reforms" have invariably failed our patients, foundering on the shoals of skyrocketing costs, even as the private insurers have continued to amass vast fortunes.
Our patients, our people and our national economy cannot wait any longer for an effective remedy to our health care woes. The stakes are too high.
Contrary to the claims of those who say we are "unrealistic," a single-payer system is within practical reach. The most rapid way to achieve universal coverage would be to improve upon the existing Medicare program and expand it to cover people of all ages. There is legislation before Congress, notably H.R. 676, the "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act," which would do precisely that.
What is truly unrealistic is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.
The American people desperately need a universal health system that delivers comprehensive, equitable, compassionate and high-quality care, with free choice of provider and no financial barriers to access. Polls have repeatedly shown an improved Medicare for all, which meets these criteria, is the remedy preferred by two-thirds of the population. A solid majority of the medical profession now favors such an approach, as well.
We pledge to step up our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our health care ills: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.


Garrett Adams, M.D.
President
Andrew Coates, M.D.
President-elect
Oliver Fein, M.D.
Past President
Claudia Fegan, M.D.
Past President
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Co-founder
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Co-founder
Quentin Young, M.D.
National Coordinator
Don McCanne, M.D.
Senior Health Policy Fellow
For a fact sheet on health care access, costs, safety-net and women's health issues, and the evidence-based case for single-payer national health insurance, click here. For bios and video clips of selected PNHP spokespersons, click here.
Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is an organization of more than 18,000 doctors who advocate for single-payer national health insurance. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[startoverat40]

since the ACA prevents state single payer laws from taking effect until 2014, we must do everything possible to protect Vermont's law from the insurance company propaganda!


http://vermontforsinglepayer.org/bl...he-“health-care-freedom”-propaganda-campaign/
How to Respond to the “Health Care Freedom” Propaganda Campaign

By Marvin Malek, MD
Vermonters are now being subjected to the most intense, well-funded propaganda campaign I have ever seen in Vermont.
Beginning in January of this year, the group, Vermonters for Health Care Freedom (VHCF), began to carpet bomb the airwaves with a media campaign targeting Act 48, the health reform law signed into law last May. The campaign uses the standard propaganda techniques of fear-mongering, distortion, and appeal to conspiracy theories.
Reality Check
The ads allege that a secret cabal of health reformers plan to raise our taxes by $5 billion to fund the new single payer system, that these conspirators already know how they plan to impose these taxes, and that they are hiding this information from the public.
Every element of this message is nonsense. Here’s the reality check:
$5 billion represents total health spending in Vermont currently. As is the case in most states, over half of Vermont’s health care money comes from federal sources. This includes funding for federal employees, the military, the VA, Medicare, and the majority of Medicaid funding. And Act 48, the reform bill, has been designed to ensure that we continue to receive all of the federal funding we normally receive. Furthermore, most of the remainder of the $5 billion is money we’re already raising. This encompasses out-of-pocket spending, health insurance premiums, and local and state taxes that are already funding health care for state and local employees, teachers, prisoners, VScript, Catamount, and Vermont’s portion of Medicaid spending.
So whatever additional revenue is required will represent only a small fraction of total health spending—not even close to $5 billion.
The ads never mention that Green Mountain Care—the proposed single payer plan– does not go into effect until 2017. Think about it: Is it realistic to expect those who are just beginning work on the reform effort to have already determined its entire funding structure—five years in advance? And that there is some sort of conspiracy related to Green Mountain Care’s funding for 2017? Next thing you know, they’ll claim a conspiracy if the Agency of Transportation or the Corrections Dept are unable to announce their 2017 budgets five years in advance.
Get real.
The truth is that the reform effort we are undertaking is a major change, and it is refreshingly honest and appropriate that Act 48 obliges our lawmakers to identify a funding mechanism 4 full years in advance of its implementation—in 2013. This timing allows us to speak with legislative candidates in the coming election season and share our opinions on how our future health care should be funded.
Will the propaganda campaign succeed?
While the assertions of these propagandists are ridiculous, this does not mean that the propaganda campaign will fail. Reality doesn’t matter when the microphone available to the propagandists is so loud, and when the message the microphone is blaring is incessant. Prior propaganda campaigns have taught us that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.
And based on what we’ve seen in the last month, there appears to be no limit to the amount of money this organization has available to spew its disinformation. While many Vermonters may oppose or have doubts about the health reform effort, the scale and costliness of this media campaign make it quite unlikely that the campaign is funded within Vermont. My bet is that almost all of the funding is coming from pharmaceutical and health insurance companies. For these companies to spend all it takes to prevent single payer reform from succeeding—even in one state– is far less expensive in Vermont than it would be in most other states.
But we’ll never know. The key information that is being very consciously hidden from the public has nothing to do with what VHCF is alleging. What is being hidden from all of us is this question: Who is funding this propaganda campaign?
Green Mountain Care will bring all Vermonters into a system of health care they can access throughout their lives. And as is the case with single payer systems across the world, only this type of reform has the ability to control health care costs and provide care to every single citizen throughout their lives. The international track record is crystal clear: Single payer systems control costs, and they are very popular – far more popular than the nasty game of musical chairs that passes for a health care “system” here in the U.S.
But this reform threatens those powerful corporations who are quite content with the health care system just the way it is. And now we see them fighting back using the technique that usually works: Throwing unlimited amounts of money to create a propaganda offensive.
How can Vermonters respond?
1. Local media outlets should not air any media spots by organizations that refuse to disclose their funding sources
2. Local media outlets should provide airtime free of charge to local organizations and individuals who are able to provide sensible balance when such media campaigns support primarily the interests of well-funded corporate conglomerates whose media buys are orders of magnitude greater than what regular Vermonters could possibly afford.
3. If they are willing to air ads from such mysterious organizations, then local media outlets should severely limit the number of times the ads air so that they are not serving as passive conduits for disinformation campaigns. Effectively, they become complicit when they profit from propaganda that is harmful to the public interest.
4. If our local media outlets continue to serve as conduits for a propaganda campaign—and this definitely includes this case—then concerned citizens around the state should organize pickets and call-in campaigns directed at these stations. Media outlets have a duty to serve the public in an ethical and balanced manner. They need to respond appropriately to this new development in a manner that demonstrates their role of service to the public.
5. Host a public forum or public debate. Supporters of health reform are available around the state who are ready to speak publicly on the issue. I have personally offered to debate the opponents of reform in any suitable venue. I made this offer on WDEV’s Mark Johnson show last month—and Mark agreed to host such an event. Unsurprisingly, there has been no response so far.
Every Vermonter who wants to create an affordable and humane health care system for our state has a stake in this effort.
Marvin Malek, MD is a physician who practices internal medicine at Central Vermont Hospital.

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

This is laughable. Obviously this bill will not fix health care issues. So many people fail to recognize that health insurance does not equate to health care.
Single-payer system would be a nightmare... It's downright dangerous. The government has proven time and time again that they cannot efficiently manage any industry (ex. look at the mail system). It makes sense. It's not their money; why should they care?

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

Btw, this addresses your claim to lower administrative costs:
"Yet comparisons of private sector administrative costs with those of government are misleading. Many government administrative expenses are excluded in such comparisons, such as what it costs employers and government to collect the taxes needed to fund the single-payer system, and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set government health-care policy (the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set company policy are included in private sector administrative costs).

But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse."

It is clear that you are pre-med. When you are actually working in the industry, you will understand.

 

[startoverat40]

This is laughable. Obviously this bill will not fix health care issues. So many people fail to recognize that health insurance does not equate to health care.
Single-payer system would be a nightmare... It's downright dangerous. The government has proven time and time again that they cannot efficiently manage any industry (ex. look at the mail system). It makes sense. It's not their money; why should they care?

If single payer is a nightmare, how come so many countries have it, with higher life expectancy and lower child mortality than US? nightmare for insurance CEOs maybe, not for the 99%.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#walter_reed
The VA health system continues to receive the best quality scores of any segment of the U.S. health system, with the most satisfied patients. It beats the best HMOs in quality ratings, has a model information system, and focuses on primary care. It has led in addressing medical errors and in its application of AHRQ quality guidelines to both inpatients and outpatients. In 2004 it won the Baldridge Prize for quality and patient-safety improvements.

 

[startoverat40]

Btw, this addresses your claim to lower administrative costs:
"Yet comparisons of private sector administrative costs with those of government are misleading. Many government administrative expenses are excluded in such comparisons, such as what it costs employers and government to collect the taxes needed to fund the single-payer system, and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set government health-care policy (the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set company policy are included in private sector administrative costs).

But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse."

It is clear that you are pre-med. When you are actually working in the industry, you will understand.

if you're going to quote something, please provide its source.

taxes are already collected by the IRS. it won't require any more politicians, staff, or paperwork just to raise taxes.

on overuse: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#procedures

my current educational status has nothing to do with the merits of arguments. it would help the discussion if people didn't get a big head just because of where they are on the chronology of their lives.

 

[Dave89]

Btw, this addresses your claim to lower administrative costs:
"Yet comparisons of private sector administrative costs with those of government are misleading. Many government administrative expenses are excluded in such comparisons, such as what it costs employers and government to collect the taxes needed to fund the single-payer system, and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set government health-care policy (the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set company policy are included in private sector administrative costs).

But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse."

It is clear that you are pre-med. When you are actually working in the industry, you will understand.

Feel free to decline to answer, but among you/your colleagues, what's the prevailing attitude regarding O-care/single-payer? Docs in my community tend to be conservative (as am I), but on these boards everybody seems to be very liberal when it comes to the topic.

 

[startoverat40]

Feel free to decline to answer, but among you/your colleagues, what's the prevailing attitude regarding O-care/single-payer? Docs in my community tend to be conservative (as am I), but on these boards everybody seems to be very liberal when it comes to the topic.

U.S. Physicians’ Views on Financing Options to Expand Health Insurance Coverage: A National Survey

MAIN RESULTS

1,675 of 3,300 physicians responded (50.8%). Only 9% of physicians preferred the current employer-based financing system. Forty-nine percent favored either tax incentives or penalties to encourage the purchase of medical insurance, and 42% preferred a government-run, taxpayer-financed single-payer national health insurance program. The majority of respondents believed that all Americans should receive needed medical care regardless of ability to pay (89%); 33% believed that the uninsured currently have access to needed care. Nearly one fifth of respondents (19.3%) believed that even the insured lack access to needed care. Views about access were independently associated with support for single-payer national health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of physicians surveyed supported a change in the health care financing system. While a plurality support the use of financial incentives, a substantial proportion support single payer national health insurance. These findings challenge the perception that fundamental restructuring of the U.S. health care financing system receives little acceptance by physicians.

 

[startoverat40]

59% of physicians support single payer:

http://www.pnhp.org/docsurvey/annals_physician_support.pdf

 

[Dave89]

Somehow your survey results are contradicted by the anecdotal evidence I've seen and heard. Seeing as the attending who posted seems to be a sensible fellow, I'm interested in his/her take.

 

[startoverat40]

Ya anecdotal evidence is so reliable!

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

Feel free to decline to answer, but among you/your colleagues, what's the prevailing attitude regarding O-care/single-payer? Docs in my community tend to be conservative (as am I), but on these boards everybody seems to be very liberal when it comes to the topic.

Among my colleagues, most are against O-care/single-payer. We are predominantly conservative, but all but one of my liberal colleagues are against single-payer/O-care.

Ya anecdotal evidence is so reliable!

Anecdotal evidence is often more accurate than surveys. Surveys are often skewed one way or another. It is evident that the information startoverat40 provided is particularly biased towards one view point. Statistics can be incredibly misleading.

 

[jonmadden]

Physician compensation makes up a wopping 6% of healthcare expenditures. 2.5 trillion a year, 685k doc, 220k avg and I think thats generous.

as they throw post PGY1 after step 3 when they want to make the shortage not look as bad but thats not included let alone education debt load, more years in training post secondary and more avg hours worked per week (which isnt adjusted for here). Any MDs that are CEOs of pharm companies they may include. Sometimes they include the entire expenses to the VA system under "physician services" in some propaganda stats

8.5-17% is what other countries spend on docs.

so they could pay us nothing and it wouldnt make a difference, any nonsense about physician cuts is just an excuse to drive them out of caring for the poor and elderly so they dont have to make payments when 3 docs in the country accept it.

Physicians are the biggest tools

 

[jonmadden]

They cut medicaid 100 billion from 2004 to 2008 the latest i could find

295 to 200 billion and likely lower now. 3 billion to GME to fund future physician workforce which ends up paying for itself how cheap they pay us

Single digit % of the 2.5 trillion still for the entire medicaid system in a large and very wealthy country

You cant even go cash in the future as everyones required to have insurance and the penalty is capped to a "bronze" level of coverage.

Peoples fines accumulate as well so they might as well buy some overpriced coverage to pay wall street

Totally fixed

 

[Dave89]

Among my colleagues, most are against O-care/single-payer. We are predominantly conservative, but all but one of my liberal colleagues are against single-payer/O-care.



Anecdotal evidence is often more accurate than surveys. Surveys are often skewed one way or another. It is evident that the information startoverat40 provided is particularly biased towards one view point. Statistics can be incredibly misleading.

Precisely why I asked your opinion.

Yesterday, startoverat40 was posting opinion articles from Slate and the Washington Post

 

[startoverat40]

whereas if i had posted from fox and redstate it would've been fair and balanced

by the way, the one from Slate was by a well known conservative!

 

[startoverat40]

Anecdotal evidence is often more accurate than surveys. Surveys are often skewed one way or another. It is evident that the information startoverat40 provided is particularly biased towards one view point. Statistics can be incredibly misleading.

you make no sense. anecdotal "evidence" is based on your geographical location and your choice of friends. there is nothing in that sample other than bias. Surveys are skewed by the fact that the results depend on whatever factors lead to people responding to them. I don't see why an opinion on healthcare would make a person more or less likely to respond to a survey, and so as long as the recipients were randomly selected, a survey is much more reliable than anecdotal opinions.

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

you make no sense. anecdotal "evidence" is based on your geographical location and your choice of friends. there is nothing in that sample other than bias. Surveys are skewed by the fact that the results depend on whatever factors lead to people responding to them. I don't see why an opinion on healthcare would make a person more or less likely to respond to a survey, and so as long as the recipients were randomly selected, a survey is much more reliable than anecdotal opinions.

The point I was trying to make was that although anecdotal evidence is often misleading, surveys are even more so. Earlier you posted "42% preferred a government-run, taxpayer-financed single-payer national health insurance program." Later you posted "59% of physicians support single payer." 17% difference? The numbers are being manipulated. Who is being questioned in this survey? What type of physicians? The first bit of information you posted suggested that only ~1500 physicians responded of 3000 pooled and of that 58% did not support single-payer. Who is funding this survey? Probably a proponent of the single-payer system. Talk to doctors around you. You will find that most are not in favor of single-payer. Although, this may be just anecdotal evidence

 

[Dave89]

The point I was trying to make was that although anecdotal evidence is often misleading, surveys are even more so. Earlier you posted "42% preferred a government-run, taxpayer-financed single-payer national health insurance program." Later you posted "59% of physicians support single payer." 17% difference? The numbers are being manipulated. Who is being questioned in this survey? What type of physicians? The first bit of information you posted suggested that only ~1500 physicians responded of 3000 pooled and of that 58% did not support single-payer. Who is funding this survey? Probably a proponent of the single-payer system. Talk to doctors around you. You will find that most are not in favor of single-payer. Although, this may be just anecdotal evidence

I checked up one of the surveys he linked to before and it seems it was conducted in the Boston/Massachusetts area. So, yeah - not representative.

 

[startoverat40]

both of those are national surveys, but they are two different surveys taken at different times.

yes there are variations in the numbers, and yes survey results are dependent on who bothers to respond. but it is ludicrous to argue that anecdotal opinions of a dozen people whom you choose to hang out with trump the results of a survey of a few thousand random respondents!

 

[Dave89]

both of those are national surveys, but they are two different surveys taken at different times.

yes there are variations in the numbers, and yes survey results are dependent on who bothers to respond. but it is ludicrous to argue that anecdotal opinions of a dozen people whom you choose to hang out with trump the results of a survey of a few thousand random respondents!

I'd rather hear from a neurosurgeon or neurologist whom I consider to be a rational, sensible person based on my limited exposure to his views, and who presumably associates with similarly sane people, than care about random surveys.

There are stupid doctors out there; I want to know what the smart ones are thinking.

 

[startoverat40]

I'd rather hear from a neurosurgeon or neurologist

There are stupid doctors out there; I want to know what the smart ones are thinking.

only neurosurgeons and neurologists are smart and the rest are dumb. oh ok......


they took their sample from the AMA members list.

surgeons , anesth and rad were least likely to support single-payer, presumably because they're least willing to give up the luxury income that might get lowered.

 

[Dave89]

only neurosurgeons and neurologists are smart and the rest are dumb. oh ok......


they took their sample from the AMA members list.

surgeons , anesth and rad were least likely to support single-payer, presumably because they're least willing to give up the luxury income that might get lowered.

You are not only a liar, you are bad at it as well. (Or, as another poster said, you really are an idiot.) Convenient clip of my post, which read that I consider this particular doc to be intelligent.

With your editing skills, maybe you can get a job at MSNBC. I hear Andrea Mitchell is hiring.

 

[startoverat40]

So you value the opinion of a purported neurosurgeon, N=1, an anonymous poster whom you've never met, over those of a few thousand members of AMA from many specialties, just because he happens to agree with you. That's why you rely on anecdotal opinions to make conclusions about a large population.

I'd say that makes you the idiot, but I'm not here to exchange insults with some loser on the Internet. I have no interest in debating you anymore.

 

[Dave89]

So you value the opinion of a purported neurosurgeon, N=1, an anonymous poster whom you've never met, over those of a few thousand members of AMA from many specialties, just because he happens to agree with you. That's why you rely on anecdotal opinions to make conclusions about a large population.

I'd say that makes you the idiot, but I'm not here to exchange insults with some loser on the Internet. I have no interest in debating you anymore.

Occupy Wall Street!

 

[startoverat40]

"Mission Accomplished"

 

[jonmadden]

both of those are national surveys, but they are two different surveys taken at different times.

yes there are variations in the numbers, and yes survey results are dependent on who bothers to respond. but it is ludicrous to argue that anecdotal opinions of a dozen people whom you choose to hang out with trump the results of a survey of a few thousand random respondents!

Thats just collections you putz


Go to job market board, indeed

Medscape just had a survey with high response rate and those figures are salary

Not collections posted from some insurance propaganda

Find out how insurance works before being a data miner

Drs file with insurance and they return only a certain % because they can basically, the patient was already taken care of and medicaid/medicare pays less

Besides the point it was before the economic collapse and private insurers cutting fees to get cash heavy for now

Pay them $1 mill or $1 it wont explain healthcares rise nor change things

They couldve made more docs anytime they wanted with more residency spots, 0.0012% increase in healthcare expenditures to double the number of doctors everyyear from 24k PGY1 to 48k PGY1

If thats what they wanted they couldve done it, but they dont want to fix it when they can use it to their advantage to divide the workforce and butt their heads in to dictate healthcare and take a big chunk of what was already criminal from sick people

They gave like 1-2 trillion plus dollars to banks without batting an eye and it didnt do anything and they caused the problem

Why wouldnt they give 1/10 of that amount to completely satisfy the baby boomer healthcare burden and the discussion on physician shortages.

And they wouldnt be spending the money as a resident makes a hospital money over their training, something that was central to this reforn and hospitals uninsured burden. Though like alot the money to fix it wasnt a problem.

This is clearly something to save people money unlike a trillion dollar bank bailout or a war so companies can safely make criminal margins on oil

 

[jonmadden]

So you value the opinion of a purported neurosurgeon, N=1, an anonymous poster whom you've never met, over those of a few thousand members of AMA from many specialties, just because he happens to agree with you. That's why you rely on anecdotal opinions to make conclusions about a large population.

I'd say that makes you the idiot, but I'm not here to exchange insults with some loser on the Internet. I have no interest in debating you anymore.

Yea the AMA, a completely unbiased opinion towards politics

Only pre-med and med students join and i think they let physicians stay on for free without noticing to say they are a "physician union" or representation or whatever

Medscape from last year has numbers that are actually realistic and current

Go find a job that pays those salaries

 

[xanthomondo]

If single payer is a nightmare, how come so many countries have it, with higher life expectancy and lower child mortality than US? nightmare for insurance CEOs maybe, not for the 99%.

I hate when people throw around infant mortality to "prove" how the US healthcare system is failing. That's such a BS statistic because other countries game to rules to make it look like they're doing better than they really are.

Higher life expectancy is kind of bogus as well. You mean to tell me that healthcare is the ONLY thing that contributes to life expectancy among a given population? Genetics, lifestyles, social habits, etc have NOTHING to do with it?

 

[xf3rn4nd3sx]

only neurosurgeons and neurologists are smart and the rest are dumb. oh ok......


they took their sample from the AMA members list.

surgeons , anesth and rad were least likely to support single-payer, presumably because they're least willing to give up the luxury income that might get lowered.

Lol, when 58% of your survey does not want single-payer it means that a lot of physicians other than surgeons, anesthesiologists, and rads did not support single-payer. We don't want single payer not because of income, but also because the government has no ability to manage anything effectively. Look at government agencies and the mail system.

So you value the opinion of a purported neurosurgeon, N=1, an anonymous poster whom you've never met, over those of a few thousand members of AMA from many specialties, just because he happens to agree with you. That's why you rely on anecdotal opinions to make conclusions about a large population.

I'd say that makes you the idiot, but I'm not here to exchange insults with some loser on the Internet. I have no interest in debating you anymore.

I've been to conferences and spoken with others from other geographical areas. Additionally, my colleagues included people of other specialties. Most seem to be against single-payer. I understand you are upset, but lets try keeping the discussion rational. Discussing with you is honestly like talking to a brick wall. You are unable to accept anything other than you own view. You believe that single-payer has no flaws despite the fact that you don't even practice medicine. You are speaking from the perspective of one bombarded by bias from one side. Finally, I highly doubt that the population surveyed was unbiased. When you have differences of almost 20 percent between surveys, you know that they are not accurate.

I hate when people throw around infant mortality to "prove" how the US healthcare system is failing. That's such a BS statistic because other countries game to rules to make it look like they're doing better than they really are.

Higher life expectancy is kind of bogus as well. You mean to tell me that healthcare is the ONLY thing that contributes to life expectancy among a given population? Genetics, lifestyles, social habits, etc have NOTHING to do with it?

SO TRUE. My grandparents live abroad in a third world country. Both are in their 90s. It's not because of the health care system. It's because they eat healthy, go for a walk every day, do not drink, and do not smoke. There is a reason obesity and heart disease are so rampant in America. These don't exactly contribute to living long.

 

[startoverat40]

The first survey I posted says 89% want people to get care regardless of ability to pay. That's not necessarily through single payer, but clearly it's not favoring the status quo either. Read the conclusion statement again.

How is it that Medscape is a more reliable sample of Physicians than AMA member list?

The govt run VA has better quality outcomes than HMOs. Medicaid/Medicare have 2% administrative overhead vs 15 to 30 % loss ratio for private insurance.

 

[startoverat40]

I hate when people throw around infant mortality to "prove" how the US healthcare system is failing. That's such a BS statistic because other countries game to rules to make it look like they're doing better than they really are.

Higher life expectancy is kind of bogus as well. You mean to tell me that healthcare is the ONLY thing that contributes to life expectancy among a given population? Genetics, lifestyles, social habits, etc have NOTHING to do with it?

The point is that single payer is not a nightmare. Many advanced nations have it and the spend a ton less and have better outcomes. You'd be hard pressed to prove that epidemiological data from developed countries is gamed, unless you want to join the anti-vaccination crowd.

 

[startoverat40]

Occupy Wall Street!

Nobel prize winning economist warns against huge inequality

http://www.alternet.org/story/15591...re_for_america_if_we_don't_reverse_inequality

 

[RIPSanto]

I hate when people throw around infant mortality to "prove" how the US healthcare system is failing. That's such a BS statistic because other countries game to rules to make it look like they're doing better than they really are.

Higher life expectancy is kind of bogus as well. You mean to tell me that healthcare is the ONLY thing that contributes to life expectancy among a given population? Genetics, lifestyles, social habits, etc have NOTHING to do with it?

Agreed, probably why you dont see an "I didn't know I was pregnant" Switzerland edition, because they don't have the population of people that the US has that makes up this television show

 

[aerodoc]

Lol, when 58% of your survey does not want single-payer it means that a lot of physicians other than surgeons, anesthesiologists, and rads did not support single-payer. We don't want single payer not because of income, but also because the government has no ability to manage anything effectively. Look at government agencies and the mail system.

I find it interesting that people against single-payer always reference the USPS as an example of government inefficiency. In reality, the USPS, while admittedly not the picture of efficiency by any means, is actually an example of a government program that DOES work!

Each year, the USPS actually makes a profit, 200 million dollars for first quarter of 2012 for example. (http://www.nalc.org/PostalFacts/02102012_statement.html)

The reason why the USPS has been in the red for the past few years actually has nothing to do with the efficiency or profitability of the post office. It is because a 2006 mandate forces the post office to PRE-PAY the health care benefits not only of current employees, but also of all employees who'll retire during the next 75 years. This mandate costs 5.5 billion dollars a year, and is in effect through 2016.

I'll also add that the USPS makes an operational profit despite the fact that it is legally bound by a universal service obligation to provide its services to the entire nation, no matter how remote they are, and at an affordable price. Corporations like FedEx or UPS can cherry-pick which locations to offer services to, and they are only involved in the delivery of packages, the most profitable service.

More info: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-service/11433/

http://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/usps-uso-report.pdf

Anyway, as far as single-payer goes, every other developed country except for the US has a single-payer system or some form of government run universal healthcare system, and guess what? They are all more successful than the US system, both in terms of healthcare outcomes and in financial spending.

You can argue that infant mortality or life expectancy aren't good indicators of health outcomes, but I'd challenge you to find a better metric which really covers the ENTIRE population, not just those that can afford treatment. They're not perfect indicators, but they are what is universally used and accepted. I'll agree that the US system does have the best care for people with money to spend, but for those that don't it's abysmal.

 

[investing101]

Aren't we in the hole by like 15 trillion, governement destroys everything it touches. If it even touches any type of market with a finger prices increase dramatically. If is wasn't for government your student loans wouldn't exist and no one would need to take out loans to pay for school. If the government says it will only cost $1 it will actually cost $2 plus interest, benefits, and paid vacations. You got to remember you are talking about a government that borrows from its own self to pay off its debt and authorizes pennies that cost more to produce individually.

 

[Dave89]

I hate when people throw around infant mortality to "prove" how the US healthcare system is failing. That's such a BS statistic because other countries game to rules to make it look like they're doing better than they really are.

Higher life expectancy is kind of bogus as well. You mean to tell me that healthcare is the ONLY thing that contributes to life expectancy among a given population? Genetics, lifestyles, social habits, etc have NOTHING to do with it?

Great article on this from National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas

Nobel prize winning economist warns against huge inequality

http://www.alternet.org/story/15591...re_for_america_if_we_don't_reverse_inequality

1) He's arguing on totally different grounds than you OWS agitators. He says the top earners are less likely to invest in weak economies, whereas if that money were in the hands of lower earners, it would be flowing around. OWS basically cries and whines about their lack of success in life (and THE BANKSTERS!

2) He's wrong. The inequality is a symptom. The disease is government regulation and interference in the market, which hurts the so-called "middle class" the most.

i think Ya anecdotal evidence is so reliable! too.

Do you have a point? I wasn't interested in "evidence", I wanted to get a general feeling. Not everything is data, data, data.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The point is that single payer is not a nightmare. Many advanced nations have it and the spend a ton less and have better outcomes. You'd be hard pressed to prove that epidemiological data from developed countries is gamed, unless you want to join the anti-vaccination crowd.

No, you wouldn't. Its long been known that the US tries with far younger premature babies than anywhere else.

Homework assignment: Find out how often the UK and Holland give 23wk babies the full court press, as it were, or do they just call those births "miscarriages" to avoid screwing up their infant mortality numbers.

 

[startoverat40]

No, you wouldn't. Its long been known that the US tries with far younger premature babies than anywhere else.

Homework assignment: Find out how often the UK and Holland give 23wk babies the full court press, as it were, or do they just call those births "miscarriages" to avoid screwing up their infant mortality numbers.

I see your point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rates

on the other hand:

"The report concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States' relatively low international ranking.[15]"

 

[startoverat40]

Great article on this from National Review

I see how quoting from NR and other rightwing mouthpieces is ok, but linking from Slate is oh so unfair!

if you think government regulation is so bad you should move to countries where the government is totally powerless, like Somalia. have fun in your new country.

50 years of rightwing propaganda has brainwashed everyone to hate the government, so the robber barrons can run wild. no thief likes to be regulated by the government of the people and by the people.

 

[Dave89]

I see how quoting from NR and other rightwing mouthpieces is ok, but linking from Slate is oh so unfair!

Quoting from Slate is not unfair, but it will get you laughed at in most intelligent forums. Just letting you know for your own good.

Edit: try this - read sizable comment threads on random articles from both Slate and NR. The difference in caliber is stunning.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

No, you wouldn't. Its long been known that the US tries with far younger premature babies than anywhere else.

Homework assignment: Find out how often the UK and Holland give 23wk babies the full court press, as it were, or do they just call those births "miscarriages" to avoid screwing up their infant mortality numbers.

While a standard of reporting infant mortality rates does not exist internationally, there has been plently of research to show that is not a sole cause. The fact that the premature birth rate itself is higher in the United States than other countries is more likely a contributing factor. This is multifactorial (higher number of twin gestations, less pre-natal care and coverage, higher c-section rates, etc.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22682464

Edit: For those would won't bother reading the article, in reference to the ten countries with the highest numbers of preterm births in 2010

​

USA,#6,preterm birth rate:12·0%

 

[startoverat40]

intelligent forums

translation, your cohorts and fair sampling of anecdotal opinion holders.

 

[Dave89]

I see how quoting from NR and other rightwing mouthpieces is ok, but linking from Slate is oh so unfair!

if you think government regulation is so bad you should move to countries where the government is totally powerless, like Somalia. have fun in your new country.

50 years of rightwing propaganda has brainwashed everyone to hate the government, so the robber barrons can run wild. no thief likes to be regulated by the government of the people and by the people.

Actually, the "rightwing" likes government. There's a musty old document called the Constitution which informs us which type of government to approve and in which contexts.

 

[startoverat40]

yes and we need government to keep law and order (regulate) not to just be window dressing.

 

[xanthomondo]

I see how quoting from NR and other rightwing mouthpieces is ok, but linking from Slate is oh so unfair!

if you think government regulation is so bad you should move to countries where the government is totally powerless, like Somalia. have fun in your new country.

50 years of rightwing propaganda has brainwashed everyone to hate the government, so the robber barrons can run wild. no thief likes to be regulated by the government of the people and by the people.

If we don't agree with you we're automatically "brainwashed by the rightwing machine's propaganda." That's sad on your part.

You know that people can...*gasp*...have differing opinions that do not boil down to pure leftwing vs rightright? Some of us can think on our own

 

[startoverat40]

If we don't agree with you we're automatically "brainwashed by the rightwing machine's propaganda." That's sad on your part.

You know that people can...*gasp*...have differing opinions that do not boil down to pure leftwing vs rightright? Some of us can think on our own

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OA-KgruEEg[/YOUTUBE]

NC: Well, there are cycles and changes. You can certainly find an analogue to the current period. The 1920s were quite close an analogue, and the 1950s were a partial analogue. The gay nineties, the last decade of the last century, were very similar. We now have a situation where the enormous power in the last 20 years or so has been shifting towards the very narrow sectors of wealth and privilege. Their goal is, as always, to undermine functioning democracy, to convert the society into roughly a two- tiered society, a small sector of great wealth and a lot of people who may range from suffering to absolute misery, a kind of a third-world structural model, if you like. And they also want to move decisions, the power to make decisions, more and more into hands that are invisible and unaccountable, not accountable to the public. In a sense, that's a realization of the fundamental principle of American democracy, the Madisonian principle that I quoted: the prime responsibility of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. However, when we quote Madison, remember he was talking about something that hasn't existed for 200 years, namely pre- capitalist, more or less mythical enlightened aristocracy. But it now means exactly what the words say, and there is now a very sharp shift in that direction. Inequality is back to, getting pretty close to the 1920s, right before the stock market crash. Democratic forms are functioning less and less, and what's more, the population knows it. Over 80% of the population now, on polls, says that the government is run for the few and the special interests, not for the people. That used to run about a steady 50% for many years. It's just shot up to over 80% [[ogonek]] the tremendous alienation, the tremendous cynicism. On the other hand, there is also a lot of confusion, since public discourse is very narrowly controlled, and we have a huge propaganda system. This is a business-run society, meaning dedicated to marketing, to propaganda, to what they call control of the public mind. It includes not only the media, which a lot of us talk about, but schools, the entertainment industry, just about anything you can think of. Business doesn't kid around. This is a society that spends about a trillion dollars a year on just plain marketing. That's a seventh of total gross domestic product [[ogonek]] billions of dollars a year just spent by the public relations industry. And they have a purpose, they tell you what it is. It's to control the public mind, in their words, to fight the everlasting battle for the minds of men and sell free enterprise and indoctrinate them with the capitalist story, and so on and so forth. One of the things they want to train people to believe is that the government is your enemy. Now, there are plenty of bad things about the government, but what they don't like about it is what's good about it, namely the government is potentially, and sometimes actually, influenced by the public. And, in fact, it could be influenced to quite a large extent by the public. On the other hand, if you can shift power into the hands of what amount to private tyrannies like, say, IBM and GE, well, you don't have to worry about it. They're unaccountable to the public, and the public has no way of influencing them. You can adapt to them, like totalitarian states, but you can't do anything about them, and that's the direction, in which things are going. Incidentally, there's a little scam going on here, too. The same people who are telling you and drilling into your head that the federal government is your enemy are also saying we have to strengthen it, but we have to strengthen that part of it that pours money into the pockets of Newt Gingrich's rich constituents. So the Heritage Foundation, the right wing foundation that, more or less, sets the kind of budget and that sort of thing for the right wing, they, and Newt Gingrich, and the rest, also want to increase the Pentagon budget against the will of the population. The population is opposed to that by about six to one, but they want it because they know a little secret that you're not supposed to know, but that the business world knows very well. And that that system is primarily functioning, and has been for 50 years, to transfer funds from the general public to advance sectors in industry, high-tech industry. That's how Newt Gingrich ends up getting more federal subsidies for his rich constituents than any suburban county in the country outside the federal government itself.
http://www.wtp.org/archive/transcripts/chomsky_two.html

 

[Dave89]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OA-KgruEEg[/YOUTUBE]

Noam Chomsky = Lewis Black in "Accepted."

 

[startoverat40]

Noam Chomsky = Lewis Black in "Accepted."

no, that would be your previous choice for one-heart-beat-away-from-president. Mrs see-Putin-from-her-living-room herself.

 

[Dave89]

no, that would be your previous choice for one-heart-beat-away-from-president. Mrs see-Putin-from-her-living-room herself.

Why do liberals constantly embarrass themselves with lies when it comes to politics?

She never said that.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp