- This topic has 210 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
abell.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 6, 2009 at 7:27 PM #465755October 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM #464944
SK in CV
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
October 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM #465130Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
October 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM #465479Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
October 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM #465550Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
October 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM #465760Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
October 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM #464954briansd1
GuestI think that it’s all a question of economic policy.
We are spending too much of our GDP on health care and we need to cut back.
The expensive drugs and procedure have got to stop. Period.
I wish someone had to guts to come and out say it plain and simple.
Everyone should have a minimum — say $5000 per year in coverage. Anything over and above that needs to be paid by private insurance just like auto.
October 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM #465140GuestI think that it’s all a question of economic policy.
We are spending too much of our GDP on health care and we need to cut back.
The expensive drugs and procedure have got to stop. Period.
I wish someone had to guts to come and out say it plain and simple.
Everyone should have a minimum — say $5000 per year in coverage. Anything over and above that needs to be paid by private insurance just like auto.
October 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM #465488GuestI think that it’s all a question of economic policy.
We are spending too much of our GDP on health care and we need to cut back.
The expensive drugs and procedure have got to stop. Period.
I wish someone had to guts to come and out say it plain and simple.
Everyone should have a minimum — say $5000 per year in coverage. Anything over and above that needs to be paid by private insurance just like auto.
October 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM #465560GuestI think that it’s all a question of economic policy.
We are spending too much of our GDP on health care and we need to cut back.
The expensive drugs and procedure have got to stop. Period.
I wish someone had to guts to come and out say it plain and simple.
Everyone should have a minimum — say $5000 per year in coverage. Anything over and above that needs to be paid by private insurance just like auto.
October 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM #465770GuestI think that it’s all a question of economic policy.
We are spending too much of our GDP on health care and we need to cut back.
The expensive drugs and procedure have got to stop. Period.
I wish someone had to guts to come and out say it plain and simple.
Everyone should have a minimum — say $5000 per year in coverage. Anything over and above that needs to be paid by private insurance just like auto.
October 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM #464959sd_matt
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.[/quote]
Yeah I didn’t catch that. Mail polls are known to be unreliable. Same with straw polls.
Here’s some legislation that makes sense to me regardless of opinion from the horses mouth. HR 1583. It repeals some or all of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts the insurance industry from anti-trust laws. Here’s the link;
http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/Regulatory+Updates/CRS+Report+Insurance.htmOctober 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM #465145Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.[/quote]
Yeah I didn’t catch that. Mail polls are known to be unreliable. Same with straw polls.
Here’s some legislation that makes sense to me regardless of opinion from the horses mouth. HR 1583. It repeals some or all of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts the insurance industry from anti-trust laws. Here’s the link;
http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/Regulatory+Updates/CRS+Report+Insurance.htmOctober 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM #465493Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.[/quote]
Yeah I didn’t catch that. Mail polls are known to be unreliable. Same with straw polls.
Here’s some legislation that makes sense to me regardless of opinion from the horses mouth. HR 1583. It repeals some or all of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts the insurance industry from anti-trust laws. Here’s the link;
http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/Regulatory+Updates/CRS+Report+Insurance.htmOctober 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM #465565Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.[/quote]
Yeah I didn’t catch that. Mail polls are known to be unreliable. Same with straw polls.
Here’s some legislation that makes sense to me regardless of opinion from the horses mouth. HR 1583. It repeals some or all of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts the insurance industry from anti-trust laws. Here’s the link;
http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/Regulatory+Updates/CRS+Report+Insurance.htm -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.