April 01, 2008
Physicians for 'National Insurance' -- Survey
The most interesting aspect of the new physician survey published in today's Annals of Internal Medicine is the trend. It shows broad support (59 percent) for a national health insurance plan where five years ago, only slightly less than half of physicians surveyed backed national health insurance. Fully 28 percent strongly support a single plan, while 31 percent generally support it. Outright opposition shrank from 40 percent to 32 percent.
Who were those opponents? Specialty surgeons, anesthesiologists and radiologists -- the highest paid physicians in the nation -- were the only sub-groups where a majority of respondents opposed national health insurance. Psychiatrists, pediatricians and emergency room docs were the strongest supporters, with shrinks clocking in at a whopping 85 percent support rate.
Overall opposition fell to 25 percent when physicians were asked if they supported incremental reform, such as both Democratic Party candidates are proposing. Curiously, support fell, too, to 55 percent.
Take away? There may not be much political upside to eliminating single-payer from the dialogue, at least as far as most physicians are concerned. (Does "national health insurance" translate into "single-payer" in most physicians' minds? I'm curious what the numbers would be if they used that term instead). Anyway, those that are against reform -- the well-paid specialists who tend to dominate the debate -- are just as opposed to incrementalism as they are to a single national plan.
Never forget that groups like the American Medical Association opposed Medicare and the first employer-provided health insurance plans, too. Like the child of a difficult pregnancy, the best organized docs -- these days, those are the high-paid specialists -- have always been pulled crying and kicking into the future.
Posted by gooznews at April 1, 2008 05:28 PMThis faux-survey involves a self-selected subset of another subset (AMA physicians), which means it isn't statistically valid.
Moreover, its lead author is on the Board of a single-payer activist group (PNHP).
This BS can be written off as a worthless piece of agitprop.
Posted by: Catron at April 2, 2008 01:34 PMPerhaps. But as I pointed out in the post, whatever its flaws, they are presumably constant between the two surveys and the trend shows greater interest in a single, national health insurance plan. And I should have pointed out that the author was on the board of PNHP.
Posted by: Merrill at April 2, 2008 04:40 PMUHC is a must in a Democratic Christian Nation.
CARE FOR THE LEAST
ONE FOR ALL ALL FOR ONE
MAJORITY RULES
SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES
KICK RICH ROBBER BARONS OUT OF TEMPLES
GO HEELS
Posted by: clarence swinney at April 5, 2008 11:32 AMThe moral imperative for each of us who believe that health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity, and that a civilized society and its members have a civic and a moral obligation to insist on creation of a national health insurance program. This involves speaking out against inherently flawed, profit-driven health reform such as the Massachusetts plan.
The facts belie the spin that's being put out and picked up by the Main Steam Media on Massachusett's failing and far-from-universal-coverage mandatory insurance law. Please help us get the truth out.
Why don't we ever hear about the fact that it is only through state subsidies (taxpayer funds) that a whooping 95% of the "newly covered" under the MA Insurance Connector plan has been achieved.
Why don't we ever hear about the 300,000 who remain uninsured in MA, many of whom are facing punitive fines up to $1000 a year solely for not buying expensive private insurance?
Why don't we ever hear about the state's history of reform efforts that were squashed by the state's insurance industry with assistance from their bought-and paid-for politicians? This very relevant background on the issue includes the citizens' Ballot Question 5 in the year 2000 that called for a state universal health coverage program to be enacted by July 2002, caps on insurance co. administrative spending at 10%, choice of licensed health care professional, and bulk purchasing of prescription drugs with cost savings passed on to state residents.
The insurance industry and HMOs spent $5.4 Million against Question 5. These health insurance premium dollars were largely spent on running appallingly misleading and fear-mongering ads on all the major TV stations for a month leading up to the Nov. election. Question 5 barely lost with 48 to 52% of the vote despite being outspent 150 to 1.
In 2002 groundwork was laid for the 2003 to 2007 citizens ballot initiative for a health care constitutional amendment. The amendment language called for a state program of "comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance for all state residents" (http://www.healthcareformass.org).
In 2004 the health care amendment received over 140 votes in joint session of the legislature. Only 50 votes were needed to advance the amendment to its second required legislative vote in the next session before it could be placed on the statewide ballot for voter consideration. Polling showed public support for the amendment to be in the >80% range. This brought out the HMOs and insurance co. power brokers with a vengeance.
Repeatedly throughout the next legislative session as is recorded in legal transcripts, there were repeated and intentional obstructive tactics undertaken by "legislative leadership" to block the health care amendment from receiving its second duly required vote up or down on its merits so that it could advance to the statewide ballot if it received 50 votes. The 50 votes were there but leadership forced a strategy to obstruct the second vote. In an effort to advance fundamental, patient-centered health care reforms, MA citizens have been their constitutional rights.
The state's supreme judicial court agreed to hear a case brought forward by 10 citizens (myself included) to fight the denial of our constitutional rights with the clear obstruction of the citizen initiative process.
It was a huge disappointment when last month, in March 2008, the state Supreme Judicial Court issued their opinion stating that yes, the legislature broke the law, but no, there's nothing that the MA judicial branch will do about it.
More on the MA Supreme Court ruling at http://healthcareformass.org
More on health care reform for people, not for profits
http://www.HealthCare-Now.org
— Ann Malone, RN, Boston
devil's in the details, as usual. docs want a system that pays what they bill in a timely fashion without administrative hassles. patients want same thing to pay what they're billed. so if the health fairy is willing to write a blank check to fund this, all agree on the resulting reform. if current economic circumstances limit fairy's generosity and we have to fund it, things get a bit tougher.
Posted by: jim jaffe at April 5, 2008 02:06 PM