Healthcare. Yes this subject again.

[sd_matt]

[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%.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6m0u0rGkVnc/SQHbXTSsGZI/AAAAAAAAAKg/F8o56ruvWXw/s1600-h/smltrackpoll102408.gif

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

[DWCAP]

The fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.

The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.

When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.

[DWCAP]

The fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.

The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.

When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.

[DWCAP]

The fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.

The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.

When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.

[DWCAP]

The fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.

The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.

When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.

[DWCAP]

The fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.

The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.

When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Hobie]
Is this an improvement of service?[/quote]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Hobie]
Is this an improvement of service?[/quote]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Hobie]
Is this an improvement of service?[/quote]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Hobie]
Is this an improvement of service?[/quote]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Hobie]
Is this an improvement of service?[/quote]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.

[an]

[quote=ralphfurley]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.[/quote]
But NP are not allowed to open their own clinic in California. However, other states like Arizona allow NP to do so. So, some of the laws for some states would need to change to allow more clinics to be open by NP and PA.

[an]

[quote=ralphfurley]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.[/quote]
But NP are not allowed to open their own clinic in California. However, other states like Arizona allow NP to do so. So, some of the laws for some states would need to change to allow more clinics to be open by NP and PA.

[an]

[quote=ralphfurley]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.[/quote]
But NP are not allowed to open their own clinic in California. However, other states like Arizona allow NP to do so. So, some of the laws for some states would need to change to allow more clinics to be open by NP and PA.

[an]

[quote=ralphfurley]
Yes. NPs are fully capable of providing preventative care. Which is what a large portion of folks need to avoid clogging up the ER.[/quote]
But NP are not allowed to open their own clinic in California. However, other states like Arizona allow NP to do so. So, some of the laws for some states would need to change to allow more clinics to be open by NP and PA.

[Author]

Posts