Doctors support universal health care: survey

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

sawoobley

New Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
What do you think?

http://www.reuters.com/article/heal...edType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

PATCHWORK

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Will Dunham and Xavier Briand)

Members don't see this ad.
 
Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

I would like to see the average age of doctors surveyed. It would not surprise me if most of them in the survey were in their 50s-60s... which makes it very easy for them to preach "We should do the right thing" now that they've had a very lucrative 30+ years in the business...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I guess I'm a little confused. Even with a national system in place, aren't there still private practice docs in existence?

I understood it to mean that if you could afford a private doc, you'd get one. If not, you have this national plan as a safety net for everyone else. How is that bad?

Well, it could be bad if you're not skilled enough or savvy enough in medicine to recruit and retain private patients, but otherwise there would still be a market, no?
 
I actually read the article this time around... though I'm not sure any of it is even factual. If anything, this is just blatant propaganda supporting a particular cause.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

This is extremely vague terminology. Define "many". Which studies in particular show that these socialized systems are, in fact, better?

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

How many of those 47 million are U.S. citizens? How many of them were born here? How many of them work? If there is a problem here in America, it's coverage for the under-insured, i.e. people who have insurance but barely... and because they don't live in a big city (and thus can't be pawned in big numbers as a voting bloc for politicians...) they don't get the coverage that they, too, need. We already have Medicare and Medicaid and other assistance programs, and while that's not perfect, what exactly WILL be?

"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.

wtf... put the government completely in charge of health care? Are you kidding? The U.S. government can't do anything right when it regulates stuff, let alone a health care system.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.

Case in point. Basically this article doesn't prove anything.
 
The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.
:laugh: Of course they do, or this study would be completely worthless.
 
Everyone knows the ACP and internists are all for nationalized healthcare because their nonprocedural codes make no money and they'd like to see everyone else make no money as well.

"More than one half of the respondents from every medical specialty supported national health insurance legislation, with the exception of respondents in surgical subspecialties, anesthesiologists, and radiologists."

Also take note of the questions that were asked:
"1) In principle, do you support or oppose government legislation to establish national health insurance?
2) do you support achieving universal coverage through more incremental reform?"

National health insurance does not equal single payer health care.
 
I've met a lot of doctors who feel this way, including recent graduates. I'm not sure why there is so much sentiment against this here on the Republican Doctor Network, but it's unfortunate.

My opinion on the matter is based on my belief that the government just outright handing out stuff to anyone and everyone doesn't solve a problem. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule (i.e. natural disaster, etc.) , but people have the ability to solve problems by themselves, whether that means working for stuff to get what they want, or by others pooling together their resources, time, and effort to help those in need. See also: Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.

Also, is it your responsibility to put your hard-earned money towards someone who already owns a TV, a microwave, a computer, etc. and a car in order to pay for their health insurance because they cry "poverty"? Is it your fault if they can't budget their own money? :confused: I'm not saying that this is the case with everyone below the poverty line, but I saw enough patients last year with nice jewelry, nice clothes, the cell-phone mobile headsets in the doctor's office crying poverty and demanding free samples of all their prescription drugs to at least make me think twice... If the government gives you all your basic needs, what incentive is there to do anything more than the bare minimum (i.e. nothing)? Makes me wonder what the definition of "poor" even is anymore.

In a perfect world, everyone would have coverage... but there is absolutely no way to maintain it and ensure that everyone gets everything the need. Not to mention the effects it could have on tons of other junk...
 
In a perfect world, everyone would have coverage... but there is absolutely no way to maintain it and ensure that everyone gets everything the need. Not to mention the effects it could have on tons of other junk...

Your other points are valid, but nearly every other industrialized nation has found a way to get universal coverage.
 
I've met a lot of doctors who feel this way, including recent graduates. I'm not sure why there is so much sentiment against this here on the Republican Doctor Network, but it's unfortunate.

Quoted for truth!
 
.
 
Last edited:
Healthcare is a limited resource, therefore it will be subject to rationing. That seems to be the main complaint in most of the countries that DO have some form of universal healthcare.

"Need" is fairly relative, even in medicine. No matter if somebody "needs" it, it still costs money.

I agree that it's limited, I just don't agree with the way we ration it here in the US (i.e. futile end-of-life care to some, nothing at all to many others).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
.
 
Last edited:
Joking aside, it is a tough situation. It's easy to cry foul when somebody rejects National Healthcare because they want to line their own pockets... but what about a genuine belief that it won't deliver what it promises, and will be impossible to scale back when if fails.

Well, that's fine. I think that a lot of people who reject universal coverage or nationalized healthcare (not the same things BTW) have not looked into the issue very deeply. Then again I don't think I've looked into the issue enough either, as it's very complicated. If I were younger I'd add on an MPH...

But anyway, I think our current system has already failed, so there's not so much to lose. However, there's too much inertia for any radical changes in the foreseeable future anyway.
 
Then maybe you should go there for your health care. I've heard England has a pretty good system:laugh:

Wouldn't take England, but I'd be happy to hit Germany, Switzerland, Australia or Japan. I've heard good things about Austria, Finland and Luxembourg, as well. But if I went with one of those I'd miss out on paying thousands of dollars a year into a system that is designed to deny me coverage.
 
Your other points are valid, but nearly every other industrialized nation has found a way to get universal coverage.
It's also worth noting that they spend a fraction per person that we do, so if we were to try the same approach, we'd be spending a lot more money than any of these other countries. We have a different type of population with a much larger sense of entitlement, and we would need to cut back on the "cover your butt" approach to medicine so as to stave off any tiny hit of a lawsuit, and we would also need to let some people die a little more naturally. When you breathe through a tube, eat through a tube, drink through a tube, urinate through a tube, defecate in a diaper, and you're drooling on yourself in oblivion, it's probably time to say goodbye. I think every single person on Medicare should have to fill out advanced directives before they ever see a cent of coverage. Nothing complex or difficult, just thorough.
 
I agree that it's limited, I just don't agree with the way we ration it here in the US (i.e. futile end-of-life care to some, nothing at all to many others).
Well, we obviously agree on that, but I think you'd find it unbelievably difficult to make the masses understand that. You have to remember that one of the most powerful voting bases is that of the demographic eligible for Medicare (and end-of-life care). Every time I vote, the average age of the other voters is in the geriatric range. If you make it sound like we're pulling the plug on the elderly, your political career is DONE.
 
Wouldn't take England, but I'd be happy to hit Germany, Switzerland, Australia or Japan. I've heard good things about Austria, Finland and Luxembourg, as well. But if I went with one of those I'd miss out on paying thousands of dollars a year into a system that is designed to deny me coverage.

You left out France.

I'm amazed at how many fail to understand the obvious truth of your last sentence.
 
Well, we obviously agree on that, but I think you'd find it unbelievably difficult to make the masses understand that. You have to remember that one of the most powerful voting bases is that of the demographic eligible for Medicare (and end-of-life care). Every time I vote, the average age of the other voters is in the geriatric range. If you make it sound like we're pulling the plug on the elderly, your political career is DONE.

Oh yeah, for sure. When you're retired, what else is there to do but lobby congress and vote? I understand this is all nearly impossible to change, but I can still have an opinion, right?
 
.
 
Last edited:
.
 
Last edited:
It's also worth noting that they spend a fraction per person that we do, so if we were to try the same approach, we'd be spending a lot more money than any of these other countries.

I don't follow your logic here. They spend less per capita for a variety of reasons, mainly less overhead and more overt rationing of resources. Hypothetically, if we adopted any of their systems wholesale, we would spend significantly less than we do now.
 
With a fully transparent process, facilitated product comparison, and real competition...

I can envision enhanced competition on some levels, but market size and reduplication of services poses some significant problems.

Life's a bitch. Time for another beer.
 
.
 
Last edited:
With a fully transparent process, facilitated product comparison, and real competition... we just might make some headway.

Thank you, I don't understand why a consumer driven model is rarely ever mentioned. The media and politicians paint the picture that healthcare has to either stay the way it is or go to a single payer system, no other options available.

What is that? Health insurance companies and lobbyists? Oh I see...
 
I'm wondering what you mean by market size and reduplication causing problems.

Perhaps we should back up for a moment. When you say "real competition," what do you mean? Competition between whom?
 
They spend less per capita for a variety of reasons, mainly less overhead and more overt rationing of resources.
I'm not even talking about private spending. The US federal government - through Medicare and Medicaid - spends more PER CAPITA on health care for a select portion of the population than the UK does in order to cover their whole population. I know you're not going to tell me it's Medicare's overhead, because everyone has been telling me that they have next to none. And it's your rationing of resources that I'm saying is going to go over like a turd in the punch bowl. Of course we would spend less if you told someone that they can't have a <insert diagnostic test> for their <insert problem that obviously doesn't need aforementioned diagnostic test>, but they're not going to like it.

Hypothetically, if we adopted any of their systems wholesale, we would spend significantly less than we do now.
But we won't, so we won't. Too many other factors involved. It's like comparing gas prices here to the gas prices in the UK compared to Venezuela.
 
Thank you, I don't understand why a consumer driven model is rarely ever mentioned. The media and politicians paint the picture that healthcare has to either stay the way it is or go to a single payer system, no other options available.

What is that? Health insurance companies and lobbyists? Oh I see...

It's because we live in a liberal society. The keystone of liberalism is that everyone must be equal. In a consumer-driven system, people will never be equal. Even under a consumer-driven system in a wealthy country, where charity care would always be available to anyone who couldn't afford to pay, people would not be equal. Under liberalism, this is unacceptable. The only way for everyone to be equal is to have the government control everyone's health care in a uniform manner. If we don't want this, we must argue against the belief in equality as the ruling principle of society. There is no other way.

I don't want to believe this survey. I don't know much about statistics, and I've never understood how a sample size of 2000 can be taken as representative of a population many orders of magnitude larger than that. I'm also suspicious of their claim that there was no significant difference between the sexes. But the results still don't surprise me. Even after having seen how liberal the vast majority of my classmates are, not to mention how most of the attendings I've interacted with so far seem to be liberal as well, this story makes me feel like I'm boarding a sinking ship. I wonder if, 10 years from now, there will be any place left in the medical profession for a person who simply wants to live a normal life, instead of being an instrument of the government attempting to create a utopia on earth.

The worst part about knowing that a majority of docs support UHC is not that they don't care about continuing decline in income, though that is troubling. The worst part is that they are unconcerned about the independence and sovereignty of the medical profession. Everyone talks about how wrong it is that doctors can't make the best decisions for their patients, but instead have to do what the insurance companies will pay for. Well, the more governmental control increases, the more docs and patients will be at the mercy of a third party, not less. When the payer is the feredal government, treatment will be even more strictly dictated by the payer than it is under a mix of private insurers. Especially since we're always being told that we need UHC so we can save money. If the national insurance plan's goal is to save money, you think they're going to leave treatment decisions up to docs' independent professional judgment?

Things are bad enough as it is with the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and the establishment of guidelines for everything under the sun. National health insurance would just be the final nail in the coffin of doctors having any independence. The logical conclusion is a flowchart for every situation, which the doctor must unquestioningly follow. And if that's the case, why have doctors at all? Why spend 4 years in med school and 3-7 in residency to follow a series of if-then-else statements set by bureaucrats in Washington? A technician with an associate's degree can follow a flowchart.

But liberal docs don't care, because they care more about everyone being equal.
 
This is a worthless argument. Even the most liberal of all liberals have abandoned the concept. Did I hear Obama propose a more competitive private insurance healthcare system? Looks like we are in this junk for the long haul, so get used to it guys
 
One more thing. Like most *****ic journalism today, the Reuters story reports on a survey without telling us what the actual questions asked were. Here's the letter from Annals (minus the figure):
Support for National Health Insurance among U.S. Physicians: 5 Years Later
Aaron E. Carroll, MD, MS, and Ronald T. Ackerman, MD, MPH

1 April 2008 | Volume 148 Issue 7 | Pages 566-567



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: The increasing costs of health care and health insurance have concerned Americans for some time (1). The number of uninsured Americans increased by 2.2 million to 47 million in the most recent census. This is the largest increase reported by the U.S. Census Bureau since 1992 (2). In a 2002 survey of physicians, we reported that 49% supported government legislation to establish national health insurance (3).
Objective: To determine whether physician opinion has changed in the 5 years since the 2002 survey and assess physicians' support for government legislation to establish national health insurance and their support for achieving universal coverage through more incremental reform.

Methods: We randomly sampled 5000 physicians from the American Medical Association Masterfile. We sent each physician a survey asking 2 questions: 1) In principle, do you support or oppose government legislation to establish national health insurance? and 2) do you support achieving universal coverage through more incremental reform? Question 1 was identical to the one we used in our 2002 study (3). Respondents answered using a 5-point Likert scale. We also gathered data on physician membership organizations and demographic, personal, and practice characteristics.

Results: Of 5000 mailed surveys, 509 were returned as undeliverable and 197 were returned by physicians who were no longer practicing. We received 2193 surveys from the 4294 eligible participants, for a response rate of 51%. Respondents did not differ significantly from nonrespondents in sex, age, doctoral degree type, or specialty. A total of 59% supported legislation to establish national health insurance (28% "strongly" and 31% "generally" supported), 9% were neutral on the topic, and 32% opposed it (17% "strongly" and 15% "generally" opposed). A total of 55% supported achieving universal coverage through more incremental reform (14% "strongly" and 41% "generally" supported), 21% were neutral on the topic, and 25% opposed incremental reform (14% "strongly" and 10% "generally" opposed). A total of 14% of physicians were opposed to national health insurance but supported more incremental reforms. More than one half of the respondents from every medical specialty supported national health insurance legislation, with the exception of respondents in surgical subspecialties, anesthesiologists, and radiologists. Current overall support (59%) increased by 10 percentage points since 2002 (49%). Support increased in every subspecialty since 2002, with the exception of pediatric subspecialists, who were highly supportive in both surveys (Figure).





View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Figure. Support for government legislation to establish National Health Insurance in 2007 and 2002, by specialty.
2002 data are not available for pathology and radiology because of lack of response in those categories. OB-GYN = obstetrics and gynecology.






Conclusion: Most physicians in the United States support government legislation to establish national health insurance. Support is high among physicians in all but some of the procedural specialties.
 
I agree with the consumer driven model. It's not just one or two issues that are driving up costs that get passed from insurance companies to the public. There's medical liability reform that needs to be enacted nationally to lower costs at the top end so that expenditures passed onto customers can decrease. There needs to be a system that requires everyone to be covered in some way (or pay some minimal amount) which means everyone can contribute and not have millions of people walking into ED's and not pay their bills and transfer costs to the people with insurance. Also allowing people to buy in CO-OPs for neighborhoods religious groups etc. This would allow them to bargain for better prices and cover members of the community that would otherwise pay more for particular chronic conditions. Anyway when we're talking about national health care such as in Britain and France etc we're talking about socialism where about 50% of earned income goes toward taxes to pay for everyone else. This really doesn't seem right and I don't think our government is ready to have such power especially in the realm of health care. Recently Medicare had to issue an alert to Congress because it is now spending more than it makes for the 2nd consecutive quarter. So if the federal government can't afford or manage to take care of a subset of the population how will they take care of everyone? Simple take from those who have money (ie work a job) and give it to everyone else (socialism). Taxes will increase dramatically on individuals who strive to better themselves doctors lawyers engineers etc. As well as big businesses that create jobs in this country. Leads to more out sourcing and more foreign contracting through other countries in which the principles of what you earn is yours because you earned it (capitalism). Anyway if people can't prosper for being better than others then what's the point of being better? I don't think this country will continue to be as innovative and remarkably more advanced than many other countries. But anyway this is a slippery slope kind of argument now but mark my words America is great and there are many many doctors moving here from foreign countries that have these "ideal" health care socialism systems. Rant complete
 
The media and politicians paint the picture that healthcare has to either stay the way it is or go to a single payer system, no other options available.

This really isn't true. None of the current presidential candidates are proposing a single payer system. A certain political party does however try to use the idea of a failed single payer system to scare voters away from another political party. Its unfortunate that political scare tactics like this work so well on those who haven't taken the time to find the truth for themselves.
 
Take a look at this policy analysis if you want to learn more about many of these "universal" systems.

Yes, I know the reputation on the Cato Institute, but it is a well written and informative paper.
 
Take a look at this policy analysis if you want to learn more about many of these "universal" systems.

Yes, I know the reputation on the Cato Institute, but it is a well written and informative paper.

I don't have time to read through it right now, but the fact that the first argument in the introduction is disputing Michael Moore makes it a little hard to take seriously.
 
I'm not even talking about private spending. The US federal government - through Medicare and Medicaid - spends more PER CAPITA on health care for a select portion of the population than the UK does in order to cover their whole population.

Could you find some numbers for this?
 
but they're not going to like it.

Never said anyone was going to like it, but you would have to admit that we have the least efficient health care system of any developed nation. If Medicare were expanded to the whole population, of course Medicare spending would increase. But it would essentially wipe out billions that are currently vacuumed up by the myriad private insurance companies. The net result would likely be a decrease in overall expenditure.
 
Never said anyone was going to like it, but you would have to admit that we have the least efficient health care system of any developed nation. If Medicare were expanded to the whole population, of course Medicare spending would increase. But it would essentially wipe out billions that are currently vacuumed up by the myriad private insurance companies. The net result would likely be a decrease in overall expenditure.

Unfortunately medicare compensation would have to change substantially if we plan on keeping hospitals around. Around here, hospitals haven't seen an increase in compensation for 10 years. We're not even keeping up with inflation, let alone the rising costs of providing healthcare. Without payments from private insurance companies, which are higher than medicare rates they wouldn't be able to keep their doors open.
 
Unfortunately medicare compensation would have to change substantially if we plan on keeping hospitals around. Around here, hospitals haven't seen an increase in compensation for 10 years. We're not even keeping up with inflation, let alone the rising costs of providing healthcare. Without payments from private insurance companies, which are higher than medicare rates they wouldn't be able to keep their doors open.

True. People have to see that if universal healthcare comes through who is going to fund hospitals? Will the government subsidize hospitals?
Will there be a malpractice reform? Will there subsidies for med school? I mean if you love universal healthcare you might as well demand these other things because you can't have everything taken from you and yet be expected to provide excellent care when you even can't keep your practice open. People need to see this.
I read the CATO report and it says that in Europe many people are BUYING private insurance because their national insurance is crappy and has long wait lists for nearly everything. Also, I was in Spain in January and people are really going for private insurance. Just food for thought.

I don't think we'll see any universal system any time soon.
 
I don't want to believe this survey. I don't know much about statistics, and I've never understood how a sample size of 2000 can be taken as representative of a population many orders of magnitude larger than that.
This would be a stronger argument if you said that you DID understand statistics but didn't believe them. As it is you seem to be saying only that you are proud of your ignorance.

Things are bad enough as it is with the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and the establishment of guidelines for everything under the sun.
Well, I'm sorry you don't believe in science, but actually EBM is one of the things that could lower costs and improve outcomes if practiced more widely.
 
True. People have to see that if universal healthcare comes through who is going to fund hospitals? Will the government subsidize hospitals?
Will there be a malpractice reform? Will there subsidies for med school? I mean if you love universal healthcare you might as well demand these other things because you can't have everything taken from you and yet be expected to provide excellent care when you even can't keep your practice open. People need to see this.
I read the CATO report and it says that in Europe many people are BUYING private insurance because their national insurance is crappy and has long wait lists for nearly everything. Also, I was in Spain in January and people are really going for private insurance. Just food for thought.

I don't think we'll see any universal system any time soon.

Hell, even members of the Canadian Parliament are coming to the US for their health care. Just little things like getting a pap smear in less than four months or a CT scan in less that 12 months that set us apart from the rest of the world I guess.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=Health
 
Hell, even members of the Canadian Parliament are coming to the US for their health care. Just little things like getting a pap smear in less than four months or a CT scan in less that 12 months that set us apart from the rest of the world I guess.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=Health

1. Clearly that was so unusual as to merit news coverage.

2. The article said that wait times weren't the reason she went to California for the procedure.

3. 47 million Americans can't EVER get a Pap smear or CT scan unless they end up in the ED.
 
3. 47 million Americans can't EVER get a Pap smear or CT scan unless they end up in the ED.

Woah, really? Is this true? I was unaware it was illegal to pay for medical procedures with cash and/or buy insurance if one does not have it (assuming one has enough income that they do not qualify for medicaid). Crazy times we live in.
 
1. Clearly that was so unusual as to merit news coverage.

2. The article said that wait times weren't the reason she went to California for the procedure.

3. 47 million Americans can't EVER get a Pap smear or CT scan unless they end up in the ED.

I actually put it up there to call into question the alleged inferiority of our health care system when the policies makers of such bastions of liberalism are coming here for their care while their constituents are left in a substandard system without such resources.

When you mindlessly shout out that 47 million number, make sure to check out the demographics a little further. A third have incomes above $50,000 and an additional sixth have incomes above $70,000. These are people that are CHOOSING not to buy health care, so I don't feel sorry for them. I also don't feel sorry for the millions of people who are eligible for government programs but are too lazy to pursue them and the ones who care less about their diet, exercises, and finances than they do about their $175 basketball shoes, iPhones, satellite tv, and bigscreen tvs.

One more thing, when you have a mandated, monopolistic market, prices are , in fact, higher. In MA, where health care is mandated, a policy costs 5x what it does to an identical person in Arizona.
 
3. 47 million Americans can't EVER get a Pap smear or CT scan unless they end up in the ED.

So what your saying is that 47 million Americans CAN get a Pap smear or CT scan?
 
I actually put it up there to call into question the alleged inferiority of our health care system when the policies makers of such bastions of liberalism are coming here for their care while their constituents are left in a substandard system without such resources.
I understand why you put it up there. I was just pointing out that it is misleading.

When you mindlessly shout out that 47 million number, make sure to check out the demographics a little further. A third have incomes above $50,000 and an additional sixth have incomes above $70,000. These are people that are CHOOSING not to buy health care, so I don't feel sorry for them. I also don't feel sorry for the millions of people who are eligible for government programs but are too lazy to pursue them and the ones who care less about their diet, exercises, and finances than they do about their $175 basketball shoes, iPhones, satellite tv, and bigscreen tvs.
According to the AMA, only 10% of the uninsured have individual incomes above $50,000. I do agree with the AMA that those who can afford health insurance should be required to purchase it. It's not all about feeling sorry for people (which I don't imagine you make a habit of in any circumstances). If someone is uninsured they can still get sick and incur very high bills, which then have to be absorbed by society in various ways. As for your assertion that millions are eligible for government programs but don't take advantage of them, you'll have to provide some documentation.

One more thing, when you have a mandated, monopolistic market, prices are , in fact, higher. In MA, where health care is mandated, a policy costs 5x what it does to an identical person in Arizona.
That number is completely false. The average cost of health insurance is less than double in MA what it is in AZ, and it's clearly not all due to the universal coverage since other neighboring states have similar costs:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS292650+31-Jan-2008+PRN20080131

Also, the current market for health insurance is characterized by little to no choice or competition, even in states without mandates.
 
So what your saying is that 47 million Americans CAN get a Pap smear or CT scan?

No, I'm saying that we live in a country that lets people die of treatable conditions, discourages preventive care, and overburdens its emergency medical system to the point of near failure. Maybe you think that's good policy but I don't.
 
No, I'm saying that we live in a country that lets people die of treatable conditions, discourages preventive care, and overburdens its emergency medical system to the point of near failure. Maybe you think that's good policy but I don't.

Until you have been to a country and rotated in hospitals where the above three are ACTUALLY practiced, I wouldn't be so quick to say that that is what is happening here.
 
Pseudoknot, you seem like a pretty smart guy or gal. Now I've got a proposition for you.

In my class, and I'm sure in yours, there are people who are struggling to get by. It's like they're working two jobs with the time they're putting in, but somehow, it's just not enough. Coupled that with the fact that they probably weren't born to a family of doctors, didn't get to attend educational institutions of privilege, or maybe just weren't blessed to have an exceptional level of natural ability.

In order to rectify this gross natural injustice, I propose that you give them some of the points you've earned on exams (no doubt worked hard for, put in the hundreds of hours, made the sacrifices like studying instead of playing xbox all day, and mortgaged your future to obtain).

It's not like you really need all those extra points anyway. For God's sake, we live in the most prosperous society in the world, yet we still have some medical students who aren't honoring classes, but are merely passing to get by. This should not stand, for these inequalities will only perpetuate the intellectual differences that unfairly burden society. In order to achieve this noble venture, I beg you to give up what you have worked so hard for in order to achieve a fairness of mediocrity.
 
Top