If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the largest domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 105,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Register Today on DNForum IT'S FREE!
So are the majority of US physicians socialists or do they just understand the public option is a viable tool for reforming health care?
Just check out the chart showing the overwhelming support for the public option amongst health care workers and physicians:
Doctors on Coverage — Physicians’ Views on a New Public Insurance Option and Medicare Expansion
Posted by NEJM • September 14th, 2009 • Printer-friendly
Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H., and Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H.
In the past few months, a key point of contention in the health care reform debate has been whether a public health insurance option should be included in the final legislation. Although polls have shown that 52 to 69% of Americans support such an option,1 the views of physicians are unclear. Physicians are critical stakeholders in health care reform and have been influential in shaping health policy throughout the history of organized medicine in the United States.2
The voices of physicians in the current debate have emanated almost exclusively from national physicians’ groups and societies. Like any special-interest group, these organizations claim to represent their members (and often nonmembers as well). The result is a well-established understanding of the interests of physicians’ societies but little, if any, understanding of views among physicians in general. Faced with this absence of empirical data, we conducted a national survey of physicians to inform federal policymakers about physicians’ views of proposed expansions of health care coverage.
In April 2009, we obtained data on a random sample of 6000 physicians from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile, which includes current data on all U.S. physicians. We excluded physicians from U.S. territories because health care reform may not be as relevant to them, and we excluded physicians in training because of their limited experience with insurance; a sample of 5157 physicians remained. We categorized physicians into four groups: primary care physicians (in internal medicine, pediatrics, or family practice); medical subspecialists, neurologists, and psychiatrists; surgical specialists and subspecialists; and other specialties. The survey instrument we used was developed with the input of an expert panel, and we conducted cognitive testing and pilot testing to ensure its clarity and relevance. (More detailed information about our methods can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.)
Survey respondents were asked to indicate which of three options for expanding health insurance coverage they would most strongly support: public and private options, providing people younger than 65 years of age the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans; private options only, providing people with tax credits or subsidies, if they have low income, to buy private insurance coverage, without creating a new public plan; or a public option only, eliminating private insurance and covering everyone through a single public plan like Medicare. We also assessed the level of physician support for a proposal that would enable adults between the ages of 55 and 64 years to buy into the current Medicare program — a strategy that the Senate Finance Committee has proposed.
Data were also collected on additional variables that might be associated with preferences for different expansion options, such as time spent on clinical duties each week, whether physicians owned their own practice, salary status, and type of practice. The survey has been in the field for approximately 2 months (June 25, 2009, to September 3, 2009). All available data were analyzed on September 4, 2009. A third survey wave was initiated on August 27, 2009.
The final sample included 5157 physicians, but 221 of them had an incorrect or incomplete address or were deceased. Of the remaining 4936 physicians, 2130 returned the survey — a response rate of 43.2%. Women made up a smaller proportion of respondents than of nonrespondents (26.8% vs. 31.2%, P<0.001), and the average age of respondents was 1 year older than that of nonrespondents. There were no significant differences associated with practice location (census division or urban vs. rural setting), practice type, or specialty group. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of respondents to different survey waves (for details, see the Supplementary Appendix).
Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options (see Panel A of graph). Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option (see Table 1). Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the “other” physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%).
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=...e#printpreview
"merrr merrm meeerrrrr merr merrrr merrrrrr"
Get ready for it
A friend of mine is a doctor and I went golfing with him and a couple of his colleagues... they were all for public option, although one was a bit skeptical, but has high hopes ~ I have also talked to my personal physician about it and she is a huge Obama / public healthcare supporter, oh and she is/was a republican.
Considering the fact that a bunch of lawyers and politicians (who traditionally have insurance companies in their pockets) are discussing how our health care should work (as opposed to doctors) should be a red flag enough.
Save the wolves - join The Wolf Army today!
Please follow the rules or suffer the wrath of Thor's Hammer.
Thank you for the replies. I'm amazed the anti health care reform crowd isn't screaming about these bloody socialists trying to get the government between them and their doctor!
beautifully stated!Originally Posted by draggar
I can not remember the figures, but the money spent by lobbyists in this short time far eclipses any other measure in the history of the US. And those lobbyists have far little to do with the care givers...the represent the insurance industry and mega pharmas.
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
You got it Doc. There is an insane amount of money being spent by these groups. There are 6 health care lobbyists for each and every congressman:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=83226836 to 1: Lobbyists Vastly Outnumber Lawmakers in Health Care Fight
By KATE BARRETT
8/19/09, 11:30 AM EDT
Three new health lobbyists register every day according to a Bloomberg report.
It's clear at town halls around the country: An awful lot of people are invested in the fight for health care reform. But the time, money and manpower that lobbying firms devote to courting lawmakers reveals an investment inside the Beltway of staggering proportions.
For every lawmaker in Congress, there are about six lobbyists pushing their health care priorities, according to a Bloomberg News investigation released today. That's about 3,300 registered health care lobbyists working Capitol Hill, hoping to put a bug in the ear of 100 senators and 435 congressmen.
Health insurance, not care.There are 6 health care lobbyists
Big difference.
Health insurance companies are not in the business of improving anyone's health.
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
agree
and it seems like the pharma companies are not really interested in "cures" either...
only treatments
plenty of commercials to take a pill for the symtoms/ailments, but how many commercials for a cure?
Need A SedoPro Account PM Me * nev.org * pmm.org * svc.net * ispoof.com * umm.org * sop.net * qfm.net * upyo.com * vioz.com * uce.org * wta.net * eoso.com * Coming Soon: Appraise.xxx
The New England Journal of Medicine only took a small sampling of doctors views on this issue so why should anyone believe that this is the prevailing opinion of the rest???
Who do you trust? The Republicans favorite health care experts The Lewin Group? You know the experts that are a subsidiary of United Health one of the largest health insurance companies in America? Please check out all these republican congressmen quoting the Lewin Group (only 1 1/2 min long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CbEt_5zgfM
There is nothing like well behaved shills for the health insurance industry telling you how to vote on health care....
You can throw Max Baucus of the Democrats (and I'm sure other Dems) in the load of health insurance shills as well. I'm not picky. If they put insurance company profits over the welfare of the American people THEY SUCK.....
A few years ago, the health ministry of Brazil met with the makers of the top AIDES and HIV drugs. The Ministry of Health wanted to drug makers to give the Ministry a rock bottom price on these drugs as Brazil was facing an HIV crisis. The Ministry's plan was to give away (as in free) these meds to those that needed them most. You see, it was all about taking care of their people and not about passing the cost on to them.
The drug makers would not budge on their prices.
Brazil then tasked it's pharmas and scientist of replicating the drugs. And they did. The took the medications and ignored the patents and reproduced them.
The drug makers threatened to sue. The Government said go ahead.
End of story.
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
Because it turns out that the same statistical sampling techniques are used by medical researchers all of the time to do things like test new medical treatments.The New England Journal of Medicine only took a small sampling of doctors views on this issue so why should anyone believe that this is the prevailing opinion of the rest?
Every study in NEJM, in fact, involves what you would call a "small sampling". But if you bother to read actual statistical research, the entire methodology and sampling technique is described.
Oh, that's right, one of the top two most respected medical journals on the planet (the other is JAMA), is a left-wing shill rag, but you don't want "gubmint messin' around with health care" which, um, pretty much relies on peer-review and publication in NEJM, JAMA, and a handful of others.
Tune in to next week's show, as BD explains why privately run medical journals cannot do valid studies....
"They only tested that drug on a small sample! How do they know it will work on anyone else?"
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
Odd how a mag that is quoted in every corner of the planet suddenly is suspect.
Glad someone else tackled this topic.
Must not be on the approved GOP read list.
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
Well, it takes a long time to get through the newspapers. You know... "all of them, any of them that are put in front of me in my vast array of information sources..."Must not be on the approved GOP read list.
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
I know. The stacks and stacks before her must have just been overwhelming.
What was I wearing?
Did they get my good side?
How much cleavage was I showing?
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
I don't understand how other health care workers are included in the results.Just check out the chart showing the overwhelming support for the public option amongst health care workers and physicians:
The breakdown only describes physicians and only 2,130 at that.
There's one important question left unanswered. What is the basis for these doctor's support? I can't believe many doctors would support a public option if their income were affected negatively and/or their workload were to increase. And since their income would probably remain at a level much higher than the national average, why would I care that X number of doctors support that option?
You can listen here
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112818960
How income is impacted is a minor concern because Medicare/Medicaid pays. Period.
Workload will increase for family practice physicians as a result of people going to them instead of Emergency Room, where they wait until it is almost too late because they do not have insurance. Emphasis would be on preventive care rather than emergency care.
"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man.",
Condemnation of Mobee boys and investors by our precious Mother Theresa of Domaindom
Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner.How income is impacted is a minor concern because Medicare/Medicaid pays. Period.
People have these pig-in-a-poke health insurance policies. Nobody knows what they actually cover, at what rate, or subject to what limitations. They are intentionally full of holes and complications that make it very difficult to actually get claims paid. The reason, of course, is that insurance companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits by not paying claims.
The "pre-existing condition" exclusions means that once you find out your insurance is worthless, you can't do anything about it. This is what the GOP calls a "market".
Most doctors know exactly how much of their time and their staff time is tied up in playing games with insurance companies refusing to pay legitimate claims. If you've never been through one of these routine epic battles with an insurance claim, you just haven't lived. They come up with any excuse and simply try to wear you down so you pay it yourself, or just default on the bill.
The end result is that doctors end up with a lot of unpaid bills and wasted time under the current non-system.
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
Must... not... rant.... in... agreement......
Seriously, unless you're in the medical professional you only know the extremely small tip of the iceberg.
Our medical industry is getting royally f***ed by the insurance companies - and now you know why wait times suck, the legal paperwork sucks, and they charge you $10,000 for an aspirin.
Save the wolves - join The Wolf Army today!
Please follow the rules or suffer the wrath of Thor's Hammer.
Thank goodness for that. My close relative who works in an ER has seen the number of patient visits just rising and rising and rising for years ... and many of their problems are not emergencies, but since they have no insurance, they go to the ER for any little ache or sniffle.
See my domains, grouped by category, at BetterDomains.net - reseller offers welcome!
Follow me at Facebook or Twitter - I'm "BetterDomains" at both places.
Posting Permissions
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
View Friends
View Blog Entries
Bookmarks