73% of Doctors Support Some Form of a Public Option (1 Viewer)

[N.O.Bronco]

http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=112818960&m=1
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=home

When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September.

Most doctors -- 63 percent -- say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.

When the American public is polled, anywhere from 50 to 70 percent favor a public option. So that means that when compared to their patients, doctors are bigger supporters of a public option.

Doctors' Support For Public Option 'Broad And Widespread'

The researchers say they found strong support for a public option among all categories of doctors. "We even saw that support being the same whether physicians lived in rural areas or metropolitan areas," says Federman.

"Whether they lived in southern regions of the United States or traditionally liberal parts of the country," says Keyhani, "we found that physicians, regardless -- whether they were salaried or they were practice owners, regardless of whether they were specialists or primary care providers, regardless of where they lived -- the support for the public option was broad and widespread."

 

[brophy]

You'll take what we give you and like it.
Good day, SIR

 

[RazorOye]

When I was in Ohio visiting my aunt and uncle - the former a nurse, the latter an oncologist - they had some of my uncle's colleagues over for a dinner and invariably the discussion turned to the healthcare debate.

Of the doctors there, all supported a public option AND a private option - I have no idea how indicative of widespread, industry support their views were. They've all made a boatload of money - millionaires each one. So perhaps they are biased - I don't know the intricacies of the debate.

And I certainly didn't offer my opinion - I just sat and listened.

It surprised me that all of them supported this option. But I just figured it was some anecdotal, coincidental anomaly.

Perhaps not -

 

[BIG E]

It was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health care research organization that favors health reform.

I read through it and I could not find the actual questions word for word that were asked. It was a written survey. I would have thought they would have included an actual copy of the survey, so we could determine how the questions were being asked to make our own conclusion.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health care research organization that favors health reform.

I read through it and I could not find the actual questions word for word that were asked. It was a written survey. I would have thought they would have included an actual copy of the survey, so we could determine how the questions were being asked to make our own conclusion.

So because they support reform that means they used unreliable or misleading polling methods?

And check my second link under supplementary appendix.

 

[crosswatt]

It is easier to pass costs along to a government entity rather than one concerned with the balance sheet.

 

[iron error]

I thought the concern or fear is that a public with private option in the marketplace would just evolve into the public option becoming the only viable option from a business model standpoint in the end?

Maybe I need to be educated on why that would not happen.

Is not the feeling that anything that is run by the government can just absorb inefficiencies and waste and cost overruns since it can simply run and survive that way, as opposed to private business which cannot?

Further, once a government option for something is the only real option in the marketplace, that is there is no private alternative, it could then change its own model, provide much less service in order to re-align its bottom line.

That would be my concern long term. Whats to keep this from happening? Am I being ignorant of something(s)?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I thought the concern or fear is that a public with private option in the marketplace would just evolve into the public option becoming the only viable option from a business model standpoint in the end?

Maybe I need to be educated on why that would not happen.

Is not the feeling that anything that is run by the government can just absorb inefficiencies and waste and cost overruns since it can simply run and survive that way, as opposed to private business which cannot?

Further, once a government option for something is the only real option in the marketplace, that is there is no private alternative, it could then change its own model, provide much less service in order to re-align its bottom line.

That would be my concern long term. Whats to keep this from happening? Am I being ignorant of something(s)?

In the 60s people claimed Medicare would quickly lead to a single payer government only healthcare system. It was outlandish then and it's off base now. Even England, with the most socialized healthcare system in the world, still has private insurers. Some may go bust because they were too inefficient to begin with, but most will just reluctantly suck it up and cut back on the exorbitant profits as a means to stay competitive.

Per the house bill the public option can't operate at a loss. It must collect premiums to cover it's costs just like a private insurer.

 

[iron error]

In the 60s people claimed Medicare would quickly lead to a single payer government only healthcare system. It was outlandish then and it's off base now. Even England, with the most socialized healthcare system in the world, still has private insurers. Some may go bust because they were too inefficient to begin with, but most will just reluctantly suck it up and cut back on the exorbitant profits as a means to stay competitive.

Per the house bill the public option can't operate at a loss. It must collect premiums to cover it's costs just like a private insurer.

What are those premiums, I thought it would be funded by tax revenue? (sorry if you have gone over this before)

Also, what exorbitant profit margins are the insurers making now, or are you referring to the docs, hospitals, or drug companies, or all the above?

 

[Flipx99]

So because they support reform that means they used unreliable or misleading polling methods?

It certainly raises a question as to the credibility of the poll. If I see two polls on the public's opinion on hunting rights, one conducted by the NRA and one by PETA, I think I have an idea as to which way the results of those polls are going to lean before I start reviewing them.

 

[cdogg]

So because they support reform that means they used unreliable or misleading polling methods?

And check my second link under supplementary appendix.

Its a VERY important part of the scientific method to review the questions asked and look for any bias.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Its a VERY important part of the scientific method to review the questions asked and look for any bias.

check my second link under supplementary appendix. It's ALL there!

 

[cdogg]

check my second link under supplementary appendix. It's ALL there!

Calm down and get off your high horse. You acted incredulous that someone asked for the actual questions that were asked, like somehow that was the craziest and stupidest thing you had ever heard.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It certainly raises a question as to the credibility of the poll. If I see two polls on the public's opinion on hunting rights, one conducted by the NRA and one by PETA, I think I have an idea as to which way the results of those polls are going to lean before I start reviewing them.

By that token rasmussen is no good because it is funded largely by conservatives and it's founder was a consultant for Bush.

Instead of presuming biases make things invalid because they have funds that support ideoloical positions, let's measure a polls value based on it's methodology and validity.

With that said the second link. Within the article under supplementary appendix, provides an 8 page PDF of the methods and questions used to produce this survey.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Calm down and get off your high horse. You acted incredulous that someone asked for the actual questions that were asked, like somehow that was the craziest and stupidest thing you had ever heard.

I asked a question presuming the questions framing would reveal the flaw in presuming that a pollsters funding automatically means it's invalid. He didn't directly say it but it seemed implied. So I asked a question to both find an answer and suggest if he did think that that it is flawed logic.

I was not in anyway peeved about him asking how they framed the question. In fact I even pm'd him the link and page number so he could find it quicker.