• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctors Fed up with Insurance Companies - Ready for Single Payer

code1211 said:
I'm not disputing you claim. I don't know enough about international outcomes.

However, I do know that outcomes are usually based on published statistics and that the stats don't always reflect identical data gathered.

Infant death is a great one to examine. It affects life expectancy and all other forms of the average age of death in a society. In the US, a dead infant is a dead infant assuming it was birthed previously.

In some other countries, a dead infant is only a dead infant if it died inside the hospital or had past a certain threshold of age.

Not a disagreement, just a caveat.
Click to expand...

There are different criteria for infant mortality and even in some other categories. That does cause some difficulty comparing. But over and over again they win in the health outcomes studies. The evidence is just too great to ignore
 
code1211 said:
I'm not disputing you claim. I don't know enough about international outcomes.
However, I do know that outcomes are usually based on published statistics and that the stats don't always reflect identical data gathered.
Infant death is a great one to examine. It affects life expectancy and all other forms of the average age of death in a society. In the US, a dead infant is a dead infant assuming it was birthed previously.
In some other countries, a dead infant is only a dead infant if it died inside the hospital or had past a certain threshold of age.
Not a disagreement, just a caveat.
Click to expand...

The infant mortality rate is a great example. The US has one of the highest rates in the world and is worse than virtually every UHC country.

LowDown said:
Comparing nations' health care involves comparing a lot of apples, oranges, lemons and limes. A more meaningful comparison to any of the Scandinavian countries would be a suburb of a major US city, given the small population, ethnic homogenicity, and oil and technical wealth of some of those countries.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the ol' "we can't have cheap healthcare because of those damn minorities" argument. Classic lowdown.

LowDown said:
In the UK the people don't care that cancer survival is half what it is in the US, or that they have to wait 2 years to get hip surgery (if at all) or that fat people are denied surgery. As long as everyone is in the same boat they're OK with it.
Click to expand...

You compulsively lie and invent facts to match whatever it is you want to say.

Outcome of cancer care by country
UK: 54%
US: 64%

Crovax said:
Yet the main complaint you about all of the universal healthcare from the other countres is how ****ty the care actually is. The main complaint about the US healthcare system pre-ACA was how much it cost.
Click to expand...

That's not at all the complaint and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in a UHC country that thinks they should change to the US's system.

digsbe said:
Most single payer countries do not have the astronomical obesity rate and other health factors that impact outcomes, it's likely not due to quality of care and more likely has to do with personal choices of the patients.
Click to expand...

Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with our system, it's just all the fat people!
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
Polls show that doctors support Single Payer health plans. Polls from 2008, suggest that 55% of doctors support it. A more recent poll showed only 48%, however, of the remainder, 21% selected "don't know". Only 32% voted NO. Many of them are fed up with insurance companies. Link below.

View attachment 67221156

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-driving-physicians-mad-nearly-half-now-say-theyd-kutscher
Click to expand...

I believe those figures. One system to interact would have to be a distinct advantage. While I'm quite sure docs and hospitals aren't happy with Medicare's allowed charges, I also think they love the system itself.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Ah yes, the ol' "we can't have cheap healthcare because of those damn minorities" argument. Classic lowdown.
Click to expand...

It's just a fact that populations characterized by people who use drugs, don't go in for prenatal care, and just don't have the wherewithal to take care of themselves and their children are going to have lots more problems. And those are populations that a lot of these small northern European countries don't have to deal with. It makes a big difference.

And you know that perfectly well.

Anyone who has been inured to the idea that a lack of government health care means no health care, who has internalized that sort of indoctrination, who can't imagine a world in which people pay for their own health care as they go, dealing directly with health care providers, and there is charity for those who can't pay, well, that's just about 99% of the US population. We're in a hole that we're never going to get out of, and you want us to get to the bottom at top speed.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The infant mortality rate is a great example. The US has one of the highest rates in the world and is worse than virtually every UHC country.
Click to expand...

I edited out the other posters quoted.

I'm not certain how your link cleared up any issues on the differences in the data gathering between countries.
 
vegas giants said:
There are different criteria for infant mortality and even in some other categories. That does cause some difficulty comparing. But over and over again they win in the health outcomes studies. The evidence is just too great to ignore
Click to expand...

All statistics are useful, but not all conclusions are justified.

Response time to people who showed up at emergency rooms is a good one. He noted that white professionals often get the fastest treatment in E-Rooms while black children often get the slowest. No gender restriction was offered. This was a discussion inspired by a topic discussed on Doctor Radio. Thank God for Satellite radio!

There is variation from market to market according to him as he expanded on what the discussion on the radio indicated.

He went on to say that white professionals are often visiting the E-Room because they need treatment for something life threatening and black children are often visiting because their mothers are bringing in a bad cold.

He agreed with me that the racial factor probably had some bearing on what was happening during the triage process, but also that there are factors not measured in the survey we were discussing.
 
code1211 said:
All statistics are useful, but not all conclusions are justified.

Response time to people who showed up at emergency rooms is a good one. He noted that white professionals often get the fastest treatment in E-Rooms while black children often get the slowest. No gender restriction was offered. This was a discussion inspired by a topic discussed on Doctor Radio. Thank God for Satellite radio!

There is variation from market to market according to him as he expanded on what the discussion on the radio indicated.

He went on to say that white professionals are often visiting the E-Room because they need treatment for something life threatening and black children are often visiting because their mothers are bringing in a bad cold.

He agreed with me that the racial factor probably had some bearing on what was happening during the triage process, but also that there are factors not measured in the survey we were discussing.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what bearing this has on the op
 
code1211 said:
I edited out the other posters quoted.
I'm not certain how your link cleared up any issues on the differences in the data gathering between countries.
Click to expand...

Well if you look at the link and read what it says, there are two studies listed. One from WHO which is deaths of a child in the first 5 years, and the one from the CIA World Factbook that is deaths for infants under 1 years of age.

Why don't we just instead recognize that our country doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world and not try to excuse the data away with claims that it might be erroneous.
 
What the OP shows is that 7% fewer doctors today support single payer than did in 2008, and that the ACA has indeed done a fine job of ****ing up the insurance industry to the point where people have such high premiums and deductibles that they cant use their government mandated insurance.
 
VanceMack said:
What the OP shows is that 7% fewer doctors today support single payer than did in 2008, and that the ACA has indeed done a fine job of ****ing up the insurance industry to the point where people have such high premiums and deductibles that they cant use their government mandated insurance.
Click to expand...

Yeah we need true single payer
 
vegas giants said:
Yeah we need true single payer
Click to expand...
That WAS after all the reason why the rats lied to pass the ACA in the first place. **** things up so badly that it would seem like the only viable alternative.
 
VanceMack said:
That WAS after all the reason why the rats lied to pass the ACA in the first place. **** things up so badly that it would seem like the only viable alternative.
Click to expand...

I hope it works. Single payer would be much better
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Well if you look at the link and read what it says, there are two studies listed. One from WHO which is deaths of a child in the first 5 years, and the one from the CIA World Factbook that is deaths for infants under 1 years of age.

Why don't we just instead recognize that our country doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world and not try to excuse the data away with claims that it might be erroneous.
Click to expand...

Because trying to reduce complex issues to bumper stickers doesn't solve anybody's problems. Our infant mortality problem may not be easily solvablejust by waving a magic wand:

The poor infant-survival rates in the United States are intrinsically linked to high rates of preterm births, those that occur when a woman is between 22 and 37 weeks pregnant, rather than full-term — 37 to 41 weeks. And the same socioeconomic divides seen in infant mortality rates are seen with preterm birth rates — mothers who are African American, live in certain states or experience high levels of emotional stress during their pregnancy are more likely to give birth preterm. And although fertility treatments and teenage pregnancies both raise the risk of preterm births, neither explains the diversity in infant mortality rates — states with high infant mortality have no higher rates of either.

In fact, the analysis published in 2009 by MacDorman and her colleagues at the CDC found that if the United States had the same rate of preterm births as Sweden, our infant mortality rate would be 33 percent lower. Instead of six deaths per 1,000 births, it would be four, closer to Sweden’s rate of three per 1,000.
Click to expand...
In the United States, almost one in eight babies is born between 22 and 37 weeks’ gestation. That’s nearly the highest rate in the industrialized world —*second only to Cyprus. The U.S. prematurity rate is double that of Finland, Japan, Norway and Sweden, according to the 2013 report by Save the Children.

At any given gestational age, doctors in the United States are as good as doctors in other developed countries at keeping babies alive.

“If you look at a baby born at 25 weeks in the United States and any other developed country, we do really well,” says neonatologist Philip Sunshine, MD, who has cared for more than 30,000 premature babies during his career at Stanford and Packard Children’s. “We have the technology and we have the resources.”

Some causes and risk factors for preterm births are well-established: smoking cigarettes or drinking during pregnancy, infections, high blood pressure or diabetes. But even when studies take these risk factors into account, there are still unexplained differences in infant mortality between different populations. Women on Medicaid, for example, are more likely to deliver preterm, as are women in lower income brackets. And single women, those who induce labor, as well as women with a husband deployed with the military, are more likely to have a preterm baby.
Click to expand...
The center has established teams of researchers to tackle the issues, and is looking at not only the possible genetic factors involved in preterm births, but how bacteria in the gut could play a role, why infections increase the risk of preterm births and whether any molecules in a mother’s blood can predict her risk of going into labor early. Already, they’ve discovered a link between proximity to pollution in California’s Central Valley and preterm births; the data are not yet published.

‘Some of these defects happen so early that they’ve already occurred by the time a woman even finds out she’s pregnant.’

“Right now, we don’t understand the ultimate clinical mechanisms of premature birth,” says Wise. “We don’t understand what triggers the onset of early labor, and that makes it hard to make sense of these social forces.” That lack of scientific knowledge makes it hard to untangle the factors that play into the high rate of preterm births in the United States, he says, but also means that it’s important to study all angles of the problem. A breakthrough could come as easily from the discovery of a new environmental factor — such as pollution — as from an experiment in a biochemistry lab. And the best breakthrough, they all agree, would be a discovery that offers a way not to better treat premature babies once they’re born, but to stop preterm births from the outset.
Click to expand...

You're implying that if we take these women out of Medicaid and stick them into single-payer (however that's defined to differ) this problem will go away. That's a big promise to make and seems to be based on scant data.
 
Greenbeard said:
Because trying to reduce complex issues to bumper stickers doesn't solve anybody's problems. Our infant mortality problem may not be easily solvablejust by waving a magic wand:

You're implying that if we take these women out of Medicaid and stick them into single-payer (however that's defined to differ) this problem will go away. That's a big promise to make and seems to be based on scant data.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that the level and quality of care Americans have access to is extremely lacking. Lack of funds for doctors and medical treatments is a large part of it. Most medical battles are won in early recognition and preventative maintenance. You can nit-pick one statistic of a hundred but it doesn't change the fact that we're slipping behind the rest of the world on healthcare when we should be leading it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What I'm saying is that the level and quality of care Americans have access to is extremely lacking. Lack of funds for doctors and medical treatments is a large part of it. Most medical battles are won in early recognition and preventative maintenance. You can nit-pick one statistic of a hundred but it doesn't change the fact that we're slipping behind the rest of the world on healthcare when we should be leading it.
Click to expand...

One of the selling points for single-payer is supposed to be that it will lower funding for doctors and medical treatments.
 
Greenbeard said:
One of the selling points for single-payer is supposed to be that it will lower funding for doctors and medical treatments.
Click to expand...

It is at less cost with often better results
 
Greenbeard said:
One of the selling points for single-payer is supposed to be that it will lower funding for doctors and medical treatments.
Click to expand...

That would only be the case if all or even a majority of the funds Americans pay for healthcare actually went to the doctors. Is that what you're pivoting to now? Our healthcare system is overpriced because the doctors make too much and their salaries are the only place we can optimize?
 
Media_Truth said:
Polls show that doctors support Single Payer health plans. Polls from 2008, suggest that 55% of doctors support it. A more recent poll showed only 48%, however, of the remainder, 21% selected "don't know". Only 32% voted NO. Many of them are fed up with insurance companies. Link below.

View attachment 67221156

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-driving-physicians-mad-nearly-half-now-say-theyd-kutscher
Click to expand...

I was talking to my friends in Canda and Australia, and they are in shock by how much I owe in medical bills. I have had surgery, but I am a healthy person otherwise. I need to see a doctor routinly, but it's not like I have ever had cancer. I couldn't imagine the bills if I fought cancer for years. The bills are insane. I have nothing against trying such a system in the United States.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That would only be the case if all or even a majority of the funds Americans pay for healthcare actually went to the doctors. Is that what you're pivoting to now? Our healthcare system is overpriced because the doctors make too much and their salaries are the only place we can optimize?
Click to expand...

We know where our health dollars come from and we know where they go. That's all tracked quite closely.

Spending.png


Every dollar collected by the government, businesses, or households to pay for health care ultimately goes to somebody. And most of those somebodies are hospitals and doctors' offices. That's the point of trumpeting price controls on hospital and physician services: less money flows to those places and so those pooling funds on the "comes from" side of the equation save.
 
Media_Truth said:
Polls show that doctors support Single Payer health plans. Polls from 2008, suggest that 55% of doctors support it. A more recent poll showed only 48%, however, of the remainder, 21% selected "don't know". Only 32% voted NO. Many of them are fed up with insurance companies. Link below.

View attachment 67221156

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-driving-physicians-mad-nearly-half-now-say-theyd-kutscher
Click to expand...

That's scary, 48% of doctors want a huge decrease in pay, a huge increase in Government interference with treating patients.
 
Renae said:
That's scary, 48% of doctors want a huge decrease in pay, a huge increase in Government interference with treating patients.
Click to expand...

It would make things much better
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom