One thing is for sure. In a recent poll of members of the AMA, granted a pretty skewed poll as tons of AMA members cut up their cards this year........random sample of 6000 physicians from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile, which includes current data on all U.S. physicians.
Excluded were, residents and doctors in US territories. From this data in the New England Journal of Medicine, Keyhani et al found some interesting things. The biggest of these is that a majority of physicians are for a governmental option WITH private options.
Not a surprise, this is what ALREADY EXISTS.
From the study......
"Survey respondents were asked to indicate which of three options for expanding health insurance coverage they would most strongly support:
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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."
But what pisses me off about the article is how it is written....take a listen....
"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),>majority still supported it."
No caveats for the fact that DOCTORS ONLY SUPPORT A PUBLIC OPTION IFF there exists a private industry as well.
What these jokers don't say is precisely that point. Which is why, the press will publish "A majority of doctors support a Public Plan" which may sound like they support single payer.....
They don't. In fact, 3 times as many support a private only plan than a public only plan!!!!
They do acknowledge limitations
"Some limitations of our study deserve comment. First, our response rate was 43.2%, which is modest, though typical of the most recent national physician surveys and surveys in general.
There were no significant differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents in important characteristics, such as specialty, practice location, and practice type.
Second, physicians’ opinions about strategies for expanding health insurance coverage may have evolved during the period of data collection, given the intensive press coverage of the issues."
But in the end, they never, ever mention the fact that a near THIRD of physicians support a private ONLY system and that this number is 3 times the physicians who support a government ONLY plan like Canada or the UK. Thus placing those progressives who demand such, clearly outside of the mainstream of most physicians.....
The only true way to save costs is to start using science and personalized medicine. You will not save costs by covering more people. In fact, I argue that there is no science which truly extols the benefit of enhanced coverage. What should be enhanced is catastrophic coverage.
What bankrupts people? Catastrophe, not a URI.
If you want to nationalize/universalize coverage, stick with catastrophic care. That would make sure everyone was covered when HUGE bills hit.
I am certain this plan would be extremely useful. Enroll everyone in this system and pay out when catastrophe strikes. It works for life insurance. Leave the small time players alone and focus on hospitalization costs, etc.
Continue funding HPSA and increase the loan repayment to 300k over 3 years rather than 85 over 3 years. Watch the doctors come then.......
Give tax subsidies for people who pay for URIs etc or traditional health insurance, which now should cost less as the government/taxpayer absorbs the catastrophic costs.........
That should keep everyone covered and help out with the uninsured. We all know that the major cost to hopsitals is the "self pay" patient with disseminated echinococcus or HIV or esophageal cancer or heart attack.
As for the government and medicare, if you just had a huge boost in revenue by new people coming on board for catastrophic care (To be read as, not pay out for most, and pay out later for some) you could help that insolvency thingy........
The Sherpa Says: Personalized Medicine is a key, rational thinking is the LOCK! I know, my wife just had an ER visit, the hospital charged 6168.00 USD, the insurance paid 800 USD. If she didn't have an insurer protecting her from gouging, she would have had to pay 6168.00 USD. I see it both ways....