Physicians

As I Was Saying…

As can be read in my response to Jane’s touting the wonderful results of the non-study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine recently (and well noted by the much maligned on THCB, but usually correct Greg Scandlen), the media will attempt to skew reporting in favor of nationalized, government-run, bureaucrat-controlled, special interest-driven, health care.

To wit, the April 09,2008, release from Rasmussen : headline: 29% Favor National Health Insurance Overseen by Federal Government.

Guess how many opposed? 39%

Should the headline have been 39% Opposed to National Health Insurance?

Let’s look at the ‘topline’ data : The most interesting: 46% believe quality would DECREASE under a national health insurance system. Should that have been the headline instead? A quick note on literature, for those who have read my comment to Jane here A difference here is that Rasmussen does not purport to be scientific literature— it is clearly a poll… and though they interview 1000 adults, they could be wrong (though the 15% uninsured reflects national average- just one of many possible factors, so it does not make this poll ‘correct’).” Have we clearly ‘crossed the tipping point’ against a nationalized, government-run, bureaucrat-controlled, special interest- driven, health care system, Jane?

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Physicians

Tagged as:

6
Leave a Reply

6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
mattEric NovackPeter Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
matt
Guest
matt

Did you see the Bunk study stating 2/3 of doctors in America want National Health Care. The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, 60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan, It’s worth a read.

Peter
Guest
Peter

Eric, you could say every poll may not represent the opinion of all people the poll was meant to cover. How could they? That’s why every poll, including this one, gives a margin of error. Obviously the poll did not your represent attitude or your agenda. Get your own poll.

Eric Novack
Guest
Eric Novack

Peter— just your conclusion is my problem— thank you for the links, by the way… The stated limitations are the key:”It is uncertain whether the attitudes of the doctors who responded to the survey accurately represent the attitudes of all doctors in the United States.” A better answer from those who conducted the survey: “It is uncertain whether the attitudes of the doctors who responded to the survey accurately represent the attitudes of all doctors WHO WERE SENT THE SURVEY. SINCE WE DO NOT KNOW THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE WHO CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DRAW… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

Eric, since you haven’t replied I thought I would post part of the 2003 survy summary. The 2008 update did not have a summary and was too big to post. but can be accessed. I can’t see anything that doesn’t give this survy some relevance. “Who was studied? 1650 U.S. doctors who responded to a mailed survey. How was the study done? Using a database recognized as the most complete list of licensed doctors in the United States, the researchers randomly selected 2500 doctors for a mailed survey. Because they were particularly interested in the attitudes of surgeons and younger… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

Eric, I think I found the study. You can link to it and see if it meets your criteria for a study/poll.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=national+health+insurance&sendit.x=9&sendit.y=5
Here is the summary of the 2003 original – I think. Jane will have to comment. It explains how the survey was conducted. There is also the 5 year update.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/summary/139/10/795?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=national+health+insurance&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Peter
Guest
Peter

“The most interesting: 46% believe quality would DECREASE under a national health insurance system.” No, I think it more interesting that 36% think government run healthcare quality would do no worse than private sector run. It almost a dead heat. The 18% not sures would need direct experience it seems. The problem with the question is no one defines “quality”. Would quality mean unlimited access or better efficiency or less mistakes or better diagnosis or all of the above? As to the 85% questioned that had health insurance coverage they didn’t say how many buy their own, get it at… Read more »