http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/81242

New research by the Indiana University School of Medicine shows that 59 percent of doctors support legislation to establish a national health insurance system, up from 49 percent in 2002. Only 32 percent of doctors said they were opposed. A slightly lower percentage, 55 percent, agreed with a different question on what researchers considered "incremental" reform -- that is, one that relies on tweaking the existing employer-based insurance system and filling in the gaps from there.

"National health insurance is national health insurance," says Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at the medical school. "They (doctors) support a plan where there is government legislation to establish government financing for health care -- a Medicare-for-all type of plan."

Obama's plan is not universal health care. Hillary's is worse. And McCain has no plan at all. Only Kucinich proposed such a plan. Obama said he plans to do it eventually, but the health care system is failing and it's only getting worse. Now's as good a time as any. Most Americans are ready for it, even if politicians aren't.

always been a supporter of a hybrid system between canadian universal healthcare and the how america currently runs. universal health care ain't all as pretty as its made out to be, considering the number of people who are every year, having to run into the states to get treatment done from canada and how the numbers are going up every year.

Why are we polling doctors in financial issues?

In other news, a survey of astronauts shows approval for an increase in funding for space programs.

Because they think doctors have inside knowledge on how HMO's/current insurance benifits the patient. For the most part doctors don't like the system now, because they, themselves, have been relagted to middle men in the providing of health, and they no longer have the final say on patient care. Also, they might have some insight on the provider end on how a transition from private to public plans may affect patients and hosptial management and so forth.

And by the way Beeble, one of the reasons I like Hillary is because I think her healthcare package is one of the best of the main candidates. Back up what you say when you say "hers is even worse," otherwise I'm just going to assume its more of your rabid attacks on her. If anything, its the one position she holds that appeals to most people, and I think she should be emphasizing it even more.

Not surprisingly, your analogy is absurd. Universal health care is not an overall increase in spending on health care, doctors are not employees of any government agency, and any increase in funding wouldn't benefit doctors directly, etc etc, etc.

But more importantly (and more tellingly) it ignores one of the central conservative arguments against UHC, namely that doctors OPPOSE it because it would force them out of business by reducing their fees, tying their hands in government red tape, and force on them long patient waiting lists that would reduce quality of care. None of which, of course, is borne out by any evidence.

It turns out that, unlike you and other conservatives, most doctors care more about actually helping people than making more money.

But hey, just like you Republicans don't listen to actual scientists on science-related issues, why would I expect you to listen to doctors about health care?

They're polling doctors on HEALTH CARE issues and the best ways to provide more care to more people.

You're asking me to back up what I say when your argument is basically, "I like hers the best because I like hers the best"? Ooookay.

My main problem with Hillary's plan is that it forces everyone to buy insurance even if they can't afford it, and doesn't really solve the underlying problems of the system. And if you don't buy insurance, her plan garnishes wages. It's like saying that your plan provides a car for everyone in America -- by simply forcing everyone in American to buy a car, whether they can afford one or not.

Obama's plan is only better in that it doesn't have mandates. Hillary's plan ignores the fact that poor people want insurance but can't afford it. It's not like they've simply forgotten to get it. Both plans would lower rates and make insurance more accessible but wouldn't deal substantially with the real source of the problem - which is profit-driven insurance.

The IDEAL solution, which neither candidate has proposed, although both claim to support it, is a single-payer system. Obama argues that such a system requires baby steps. I understand where he's coming from but I think most Americans would need only a nudge to get to them to understand the benefits of such a system.

Universal health care, meaning having health care extended to everyone, including those who can't afford it, is a good thing, and eventually needs to happen.

Government run and controlled health care is a nightmare I never want to experience.

No, it's primarily a financial issue to distribute health care, not a health care issue. It's as silly as Kidrock pointed out earlier, polling astronauts on funding for space exploration. Sure they're involved, and they probably have a decent idea about the whole situation, but are they really the best people we can find to poll about this subject?

Interesting, the reason I like Hillary's plan is that it is mandatory. I learned from the MA model.

1. Mandatory insurance lowers the price per person. Like bulk shopping lowers individual item costs.

2. Payment is on a sliding scale based on income, so will always remain affordable even to people with weak salaries or the unemployed.

3. For systems like this to work (This was a complication early on in MA) the healthy have to enroll. This is the 20-35 year old age bracket. It can't only be retirees. The problem is, that's the age group that tends to avoid getting health care at all, because they think for the moment they're healthy. Then they develope health care problems and sign up only after that point, raising overall premiums. At marginally less expense to tax payers (15-20%), Obama's plan would cover only about half the people. Its not cost effective.

4. Repuiblicans are going to pounce on his anti-mandate stump line. His plan is going to become even weaker not stronger.

5. On moral levels: I prefer broader health care coverage because it undermines existing bias towards specifically heterosexual marriage which is propped up by work places that provide coverage, and I hate historic proposals for child-only manadate of coverage. They failed to establish a broader vision of coverage, demarcated the innocent from those who "deserve" to go without coverage, and didn't take into a account a child with unhealthy parents is already at a disadvantage to his/her peers.

6. People shouldn't be dependant on a job they want to leave because of health issues. I guess that makes me a socialist libertarian, but I think there are some things the government should provide that enable its citizens to make personally independant choices. I'm for mobility, and someone shouldn't be worried about getting hit by a car if they leave their job. Also, more and more of the industry is contractual work, private consulting, home-office, etc. This shift in industry is not being taken into acount with the older plans of work-place health care provisions, and big labor.

7. Lets compare health care to public schooling, shall we? For some reason most Democrats are opposed to vouchers, and believe even those who send their kids to private schools have some responsibility towards the public (And those who go through public schooling). Yet we don't seem to think so about health care. Under a non-mandatory programme it will quickly lose support of the wealthy, and also the Middle Class who just don't sign up for health coverage at all. What remains is "the poor" and we've seen in the history of public schools how quickly a government institution can go to piuts when funding it becomes such a demarcated class and race issue.
It will then actually become another polarized taxpayer issue around race, class and gender (you know, what Obama believes he'll overcome in his presidency), just like school funding. Republicans will pounce on because government should only be supporting empowered big industry, not disempowered individual citizens.

Its not exactly single-payer, but mandatory is miles better both in cost-efficiency and on moral standards as far as I'm concerned.

You raise some interesting poitns that I've never heard or thought of before. Hm

As I think I've said elsewhere, I'm a pretty invested issues voter. Many issues are at the heart of my decision, and health care is one of the main ones. I have more ideas about other topics if you are interested in discussing them, but I've sensed most of the talk in this forum has drifted from that line of thought towards discussions of the candidates personalities and griping about the primary nomination process length...which bore me.

I guess I could say that my fairly militant feminism played a role in my decisions, but it doesn't. I'm also a pessimist, and already predict I will never see a female president in my lifetime. So I've dropped that point as impetus for voting a long time ago, and have always focussed on analyzing the nuances of the respective candidates' positions on the issues and their representative pasts.

I also don't care much for campaign rhetoric and prefer to dive into the nitty gritty of policy proposals. I recognize on the campaign trail everyone is just trying to present themselves in a way that is least offensive to as many people with different views as possible.

People don't believe me, though, when I say I really do support most of Hillary's proposals on a logical basis, especially as far as domestic politics, and also her position on Iran. Oh well. Glad you at least found my ideas on mandatory healthcare interesting, and thanks for reading them and keeping an open mind to them.

I think both Obama and Hillary's plans are good in spirit, terrible in execution.

I too liked your post Dolce.

Anyway, to the topic. I actually somewhat agree with whomever said that they shouldn't have polled the doctors. In reality, they should have polled the people like me: the billing managers, the claims analysts, the people who actually know what the hell any of the following terms mean: UB92, CMS1500, crossover claim, allowed amount, provider adjustment, disallowed amount, negotiated rate, network credentials, preferred provider...etc, etc, etc ad nasaum.

Anyway, a single health payer system would be interesting but I'm not sure it would work entirely. I don't think the actual health care should be in the hands of the government, but I think they should have a much larger role in overseeing it, if that makes sense. I don't trust the government to actually manage a single health insurance company on their own, seeing what a mess they've made out of Medicare (I'm talking about more deep-rooted issues, if you don't believe me I'll provide specifics).

And eliminating all health insurance companies would reduce the fundamentals of American economics: that of a free market. I would not be opposed to having for example one set fee schedule across the board, and more oversight in reducing duplication of efforts. I think there should be more regulation on justification for denial of claims and services, termination of coverage and premium rates and adjustments.

I think that certain coverages should be mandated. For example, the state of Georgia requires all insurance companies to "offer" mental health coverage. If an applicant does not accept it (and usually pay extra), health insurance companies can deny all coverage for mental health. So, if someone is raped and requires mental health services, or if they have a nervous breakdown and attempt suicide, etc, their claims can be denied without even a hesitation, so long as that waiver was offered. Granted in the case of the rape, it might be covered under the Victims Compensation fund that I know Georgia (and I believe most other states) have, but that's beside the point. California requires all "severe mental health issues" to be covered under the medical policy. I think this should be mandated nationwide.

Many policies don't cover certain transplants unless you select a waiver. Even if you select the waiver they may not cover it for up to a year. If you've been treated for any of a laundry list of ailments and then switch insurance policies you may not get coverage for those ailments until 6 months-1 year after you start the new policy. Sometimes they won't even cover medications (because they are "pre-existing"). So what about the guy with bipolar disorder who no longer can afford to pay $300+ a month for his medications since his insurance company won't cover it? Anyone who has dealt with untreated bipolar individuals will know this can literally ruin someone's life.

I also don't see a need for separate medical, mental health, dental and vision plans. Are not all of these items related to overall health? Yeah.

The list goes on, I could literally right page after page after page of injustices in the name of saving money for the health insurance companies. It needs to be overhauled somehow, someway.

Simple. Money.

Eye care is something that will inevitably happen to every single person as he or she ages. Companies don't want to pay for it unless you dish over the cash, because they would need to provide it for everyone. I might have 20/30 eyesight now, but not when I'm 70. Insurance companies aren't interested in making eye care something you can get with low premiums. Everyone only applies for coverage after its already been medically verified that they need it. If they could sign up for coverage at 20 as part of a general health package, it wouldn't be in big insurance companies' best financial interests.

I confess to my own short-comings when it comes to dental. I have coverage now through school, but there were periods of time in my past when I didn't bother paying for it (I was one of those damn 20-35 year olds). If I needed a root canal then, I would have had to pay up the wazoo, or I would have had to get expensive coverage as part of trying to do 'too little, too late.'

Mental Health? Not sure. I think because its still, in the scheme of things, an emergent health field, and many people don't think it has anything to do with one's health. Most of this country still has taboos about even going to a therapist and would probably flip at the idea that they are 'crazies' that need to have health insurance coverage. I'm guessing this will change as the taboos fade.

Then you should never run for political office. You should never work for the government or in a state run school. And you should never ever live anywhere but America, rather than face the "nightmare" scenarios of France or Canada with their longer life expectancies, better access, and lower costs. Whoo. Who wants that?!

Well, if anyone had made that particular claim, you'd have a point. They are one very important element of the system and it's worth noting their opinions on the subject of providing health care. But they are not the only voices and I never said they were.

In a total single-payer model, this would be true. But Hillary's plan keeps private insurance companies and forces everyone to use them. It would be up to the insurance companies to lower rates, and we all know how they LOVE to do that. If she's proposing forcing them to lower rates, instead of relying on the market to do it as you suggest here, then why not just go all in and propose a single-payer system?



I agree with you here, but the government in this case doesn't provide anything. It mandates coverage but relies on private insurance companies to provide it.

And I do agree about mobility of coverage. I think both plans address this issue, but it would be totally resolved with a single-payer system.



Who's "we"? I've been advocating a single-payer system this whole time while you've been defending Hillary's band-aid solutions. Instead of supporting it just because you have to support Hillary no matter what, why not encourage her and Obama to propose a single-payer system, especially since it is extremely unlikely that she'll be the nominee, and your defense of her program (as a presidential candidate at any rate) is moot.

It already does work everywhere else in the world. America is the only industrialized nation WITHOUT a single-payer system.



The actual health care WOULDN'T be in the hands of the government. It would be in the hands of doctors and health care professionals, probably the same ones you go to now.



There would still be a market for private health insurance companies, just as there are in Europe and Canada. And the "free market" economics is precisely why we are in the mess we are in now, with insurance companies maximizing profits by denying care and coverage. The practices of these companies is WHY we need a single-payer system.



On that much, we certainly agree.

And if there's a better plan than the single-payer system, I'm all ears. I was listening to NPR about a doctor (in Phoenix I think) who limited her practice to 200 patients who paid $1000 a year to see her. For that, they got as much time as they needed with her, no rushing them in and out of the office, no endless waiting. She made a very decent living and her patients got her complete time and attention.

Canada
Better Access

I laugh.

Heh, I think you misunderstood me. I agree with what you said, it should be covered under the major medical policies.

I don't get benefits through my job (despite working full-time in a medical practice) and because of that I pay out the wazzoo for second rate coverage with no dental or vision. I'm going to need a lot of work done on my teeth done later (due to pre-existing things...)

I agree with sommie here, I really think the ones who need to make the decision are the people who know the ins and outs of insurances. Some doctors do, yes, but for example the one I work for constantly comes out and asks me how certain things are billed etc., and most of the time it is like talking to a brick wall. Unless you have experience, it isn't going to make sense.

Hmm...



No, it would be in the hands of the government. Just like Medicare and they fucked that up royally, trust me. Do I need to give examples? What about their total mismanagement of NPI (national provider identifiers) that has become a massive headache for a lot of people. The list goes on and on and on.



So why would private companies be around? That doesn't make sense. If we provide national coverage and then allow private companies you are saying that the national coverage (single payer) wouldn't be the best (hence the need for private companies). You can't have it both ways.




Woah. You agree with me? That's a first.



Yeah, I forget what that is called. Premium health care of something like that. It is usually more than $1000 a year I think. It is gaining traction among the wealthy too, those that don't like to sit in waiting rooms etc. as well as businesspeople who can't take time out of their day to wait for long periods of time. Not a bad idea, it just caters to the wealthy. And, I might add, the $1000 is in addition to their normal copays etc., as she would still bill their insurance companies. So she is making an additional $200,000 by limiting the number of patients.