You wouldn't know it from news reports, but most doctors support national health care
June 15, 2009 4:19 pm ET by Jamison Foser
In the comments section of my column about media coverage of the AMA, a reader writes:
Do you think you are fooling people? In this entire article, you never once address what the FAR MAJORITY of Doctors believe. They believe that a nationalized program will be the downfall of coverage and care as we know it. There is no argument there. And all you had to do was look at polls or interview them. It i no secret. Do your job as a jornalist. ...
If you all want to be responsible reporters, then report the facts. The facts are Doctors OVERWHELMINGLY are opposed to a nationalized plan. All you have to do is ask. And to imply that is not the case is hogwash, and you should be ashamed of yourselfs. Unfortunately, your lemming readers will belive it.
Well. I'm no journalist; I'm a media critic. But the reader is correct that responsible reporters should report the facts. And the facts are that, despite what the media is reporting about the AMA's recent comments would lead you to believe, most doctors support national health care:
More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.
Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.
"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.
"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."
...
"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.
The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.











Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular




The Cost Conundrum
What a Texas town can teach us about health care.
by Atul Gawan
I bet nobody's seen the demonstrations either. He profiled a group of doctos and nursed picketing outside the WH, but I haven't heard a word about it in the MSM.
How about a poll of doctors who have left the medical profession? What were their reasons? And what careers did they move into? As health care costs to consumers have risen for years, doctors reimbursments have not kept pace. Insurance profits have soared and drug companies get almost free reign to market directly to patients. Follow the money and it will not lead you to doctors in regular practice.
government legislation to establish national health insurance?"
Source: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/148/7/566.pdf
It's totally ingrained in the corporate media that National Healthcare "must" be wrong. Therefore, they will be on high alert for stories and angles and arguments which support their ingrained bias.
Facts which go against their conditioning will just not be reported.
IT IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE HEALTH-CARE IN AMERICA IS THE BEST OR WORST IN THE WORLD... IT IS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO ACCESS ALL THAT GREAT HEALTH-CARE IN AMERICA!!!
So it really is a huge part of the debate to bring facts to the table when the opposition has made this slogan such a huge underpinning of their arguement.
It would be like a Houston Texans fan screaming that his team is the best in the league because every other team wishes it had Andre Johnson as its wide receiver. Pointing out that their record was 8-8 and didn't make the playoffs is just a bunch of pointy-headed, Ivy League elitism. And the newspaper that listed the Texans 8-8 record on the agate page just shows typical East Coast liberal bias.
To me, as a former health professional, it is appalling that some of our elected representatives don't blink an eye in spending a trillion dollars in Iraq over a period of time, but scream to high heaven if that dollar amount is suggested as required to provide citizens of this nation a fundamental right. The fact that anyone feels the need to oppose health care because they are worried about the poor little private insurance companies is beyone belief as well.
I see no problem with offering people a competitive choice in health care between government and private insurers. That is really the crux of Obama's plan anyway. If private insurance is so much better then why is there fear of a government competitor? As long as it's not free to those who are capable of contributing I see no problem with competing with these insurance companies anyway. Let's see how they operate in an environment where their competitor isn't in the business of denying claims as opposed to paying them. If the model of a capitalistic economy the conservatives love so much is correct, then obviously lower costs will be the end result....right? How compelling would it be to place emphasis on disease prevention and see it work?
One think I would like to see is across the board lower premiums for those who quite smoking those d@mn cigarettes and don't allow their bodies to become bastions of obesity and hardened arteries. I do believe that those who voluntarily choose to destroy their bodies with tobacco, potato chips, and twinkies should have the right to care but they should also suffer the consequence of higher premiums. I don't think anyone would find it fair to monetarily contribute the health care of an individual who makes poor health choices without that person contributing proportionally more.
After seeing "Sicko" myself recently, it does seem like the countries that offer the so called "socilaized" medicine are very proactive on the preventitive side of medicine. That's the key.