Nearly Three-Quarters of Doctors Favor a Public Option: Survey

This is as big a lie as no abortions.

Jake wrote:

<quoted text>
EVERYONE'S taxes will rise considerably.
Are people willing to give up 10-20% MORE of their income so deadbeats have health insurance?

Everone's taxes will ALWAYS RISE. So at least let's get something constructive for it.

Single-payor healthcare instead of phony oil wars paid for with high taxes and American blood.

Oh, and to all the conservatives: This would be good for business. Many businesses cite healthcare as the issue when they move out-of-state or overseas.

We have nothing but the health of our workers backing up the dollar.

Obama is visionary. He is thinking about long-term benefits. Americans are used to instant-gratification. They have to get over it.

We have to solve our social problems unless we want to become a third-world country.

All it means is a little more socialism. If that's what it takes to include everyone, then so be it.

Instant gratification culture is immature.

Dubyanomics wrote:

<quoted text>Okay, but please tell all the doctors no govt. scholarships, no hospital grants/bailouts, and we gotta open up the national practitioner's data banki, ban secret settlements, and arrest doctors who tamper with records. That will level the playing field.

If the government was to actually allow the free market to work, there woul dnot be a need of r government grants, scholarships, etc.. The government took over the free market under Lincoln in 1890. That was the last time our market was actually free. With the free market, industry would not be held back, competition would greater lower costs across the board. That means lower tuition, lower building costs, etc.. But, that is not what we have. Beyond contrary belief the government already controls healthcare through regulations, licensing of doctors, and building permits. The government controls the supply when the demand is increasing. Keep supply low, only the few then can make the profit margins at the higher rate they do and inturn these companies are to raise costs to the extreme level they are presently at. The premiums on health insurance are the prime example of government intrusion. The government and interstate commission have restricted the sale of insurance across state lines. This limits the amount of companies that can sell insurance within particular states, limiting the amount of supply which raises costs. The states are partial to blame for this besides the fed's and the interstate commission.

Please keep on making those speeches about your healthcare ideas.

Apparently you make a great impression in person,
because the polls show a huge bounce after your speeches.

You gotta pull out all the stops and campaign hard for this in person.

Seeking truth wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you were never good at math. 75% of doctors favor a public option,****. BTW, I thought jerks like you said we have the best care in the world. Now you complain that they don't speak English.****, can you show some consistency for a change???

If you want to make a point, you will get farther by either telling the truth or painting the whole picture. That statement covers only 30% of the total doctors in the US, not just the AMA.

Crash wrote:

<quoted text>
If the government was to actually allow the free market to work, there woul dnot be a need of r government grants, scholarships, etc.. The government took over the free market under Lincoln in 1890.

And what medical options were available in 1890? Herbalists? Homeopaths? Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking alternative medicine.
But if you had any kind of trauma, there were no Mris and cat scans and folks paid their docs out-of-pocket. And medicine was not a high-status, high-paying job.

Also, people got around on horses, steam boats, and trains. Seems a little naive to compare these two eras.

probama wrote:

<quoted text>Some countries have single-payor systems that work well. And those are not fascist countries.

yep with a tax rate of 65 % you can do that. you can also have health insurance by getting rid of your big screen, cable, cell and working for a living.

To Barack Obama wrote:

Please keep on making those speeches about your healthcare ideas.
Apparently you make a great impression in person,
because the polls show a huge bounce after your speeches.
You gotta pull out all the stops and campaign hard for this in person.

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
CNN KING 1,355,000
CNN COOPER 1,086,000

http://la-gun.com/manning/manning_video/

CORRECTION: The Lincoln Era was around 1860, not 1890. So it was even more primitive then.

Before Lincoln took over, the market was not so free, especially if you were black.

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IS WASHINGTON!!!
(We the people must no longer give aid & comfort to their games)

Senator Lamar Alexander was FOR Czars BEFORE he was against them…
According to news accounts, there are 32 or 34 so-called czars in the Obama White House. Respected voices in the Senate—Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison, a senior Democrat and a senior Republican—have pointed out that these czars are an affront to the Constitution.-9/14/09
“[President Bush] talked about appointing a sort of manufacturing job czar in the Commerce Department, which I would welcome.”- 9/2/03
“Within a few weeks the Congress will be considering the nomination of Randall Tobias to be the new AIDS czar…who is not yet confirmed by the Senate. I hope he will be.”-9/3/03
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/16/lamar-ale...

President Obama disingenuous when it comes to paying for Health Care Reform…
“Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.”-9/9/09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics...
"If the costs of the Medicaid program that they're anticipating turn out to be wrong, as they did with TennCare, in the federal government you say 'oops' and borrow some more money," Governor Bredesen said.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090818/NE...

Crash wrote:

<quoted text> Beyond contrary belief the government already controls healthcare through regulations, licensing of doctors, and building permits.

The medical boards may be run by the government, but they are staffed by local doctors who protect each other. Doctors do not do a good job when they self-police.

We need to ban local docs from medical boards.
We need to test all docs for drugs even if they don't have a record.
We need to open the National Practitioner's data bank.
We need to ban secret settlements.

But doctor will lobby heavily against this.

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>yep with a tax rate of 65 % you can do that. you can also have health insurance by getting rid of your big screen, cable, cell and working for a living.

Plenty of folks who work don't have health insurance. Nor do they have lobbyists to bribe Congress.

Thomas wrote:

We are, the 85% of americans who have medical coverage.
Now, that congress is jamming down a solution to the 85% of us with insurance, will congress join their wonderful solution?
NO!

The 85% with insurance are the healthiest ones. They have enough health to work. The sickest ones default onto public insurances where they are not a priority with docs.

The taxpayers are already paying for the sickest.
So let's nationalize the premiums of the healthy and give EVERYONE better insurance.

Dubyanomics wrote:

<quoted text>And what medical options were available in 1890? Herbalists? Homeopaths? Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking alternative medicine.
But if you had any kind of trauma, there were no Mris and cat scans and folks paid their docs out-of-pocket. And medicine was not a high-status, high-paying job.
Also, people got around on horses, steam boats, and trains. Seems a little naive to compare these two eras.

I wasn't comparing the two era's. I was stating that was when we lost the free market. For instance, how mahy actual trauma centers do you have in your community area? How many places do you have a full fledged MRI department?

I can only speak of my area, which is a rather large area, and in my area there is only 1 trauma center and that is a 45 minute drive. Why is that? Regulation and restricting the supply of the free market. The cost of trauma center is extremely high, but, the reason for it is the limited access. Medical centers and/or hospital can not afford to have a full trauma center. You open the free market and that will lower the cost and you would have more access to affordable healthcare and inturn lower insurance premiums.

Dubyanomics wrote:

<quoted text>The medical boards may be run by the government

That statement says it all.

Blue Ray wrote:

<quoted text>
It would be nice to know something about the control group. It's obvious that the pollsters interviewed foreign, non-English speaking doctors in VA Hospitals. Anybody in his/her right mind knows that real doctors abhor the idea of socialized healthcare. This kind of twisting data is even worse than the spew of plain old lies and misinformation you libs usually regurgitate.

Oh please tell us all how you know that these doctors are all who you claim they are? Do you possess magic psychic powers?)More like psychotic powers.) Talk about regurgitating misinformation! You're like a momma seagull feeding her babies when it comes to that!

It is what you should expect from the ira/snafu connection. The study on snafu's site quotes the New England Journal of Medicine but if you read the source you find that it was done by the AMA, the AMA does not represent most doctors as it advertises and lobbies on behalf of the administration’s plans.

If you check out Investors Business Daily you find a poll which suggests that doctors and not so pleased with Obama's plan.

In the poll more than 1,300 physicians finds that nearly two-thirds (65%) don’t back ObamaCare, more than 70% say the government cannot provide insurance coverage for 47 million additional people and save money without harming quality, and 45% of doctors say they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if the liberal health care plan passes.

Read that blosspot snafu thing then go read http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Arti...

Then make up your mind what the truth is.

Now, nothing will hurt this country more than a bad plan for government involvement in providing healthcare. Be it directly spending tax dollars for a public option or indirctly lying and hiding via a co-op.

If either option was going to help this country, the administration would have a business plan of how.
Say we start a public healthcare option and call it the Ted Kennedy plan in honor of him.
Who would be eligible?
How much would coverage cost?
How much would I save if I switched?
Why wouldn't congress be part of this plan if they want america to participate?
How much would my income tax go up (or down)
How much would this cost the deficit?

What ever plan is proposed in the end, can we have a national referendum to support or kill this bill? Why are we trusting 500-600 politicians to decide for america by taking over 1/6 of our economy. Why can't we the people vote on this?

The reason is simple, they can't provide a business plan to compete without cutting care or coverage those with insurance have.

Probama wrote:

<quoted text>The 85% with insurance are the healthiest ones. They have enough health to work. The sickest ones default onto public insurances where they are not a priority with docs.
The taxpayers are already paying for the sickest.
So let's nationalize the premiums of the healthy and give EVERYONE better insurance.

Probama wrote:

<quoted text>The 85% with insurance are the healthiest ones. They have enough health to work. The sickest ones default onto public insurances where they are not a priority with docs.
The taxpayers are already paying for the sickest.
So let's nationalize the premiums of the healthy and give EVERYONE better insurance.

Since you seem to be sooooo fond of others pulling your weight just WHO bangs your woman for you???

What many liberals/conservatives don't either seem to realize or care about is this isn't really about health care or economics,its about control and power. THATS why so many independents have turned against Obama and the congress as a whole. I can't wait for 2010......