Docs as Props

[slipslidingaway]

A good portion of these doctors were selected from the Doctors for Obama campaign group who now go by the name of Doctors for America, Baucus announced the name change back in May.

Video at link...
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/docs_as_props.php

"...Banned from the meeting were doctors from Physicians for a National Health Program — representing more than 17,000 docs who support a single payer health care system...

...But afterward, Hochfeld said it was a mere “photoshoot.”

“There were no questions,” Hochfeld said after the Rose Garden event. “There were no comments. This was clearly a photoshoot. This isn’t about health care. This is about our legislators needing campaign financing. These were genuine doctors inside. And they agree that our political process is completely corrupt. And that’s the reason we are not getting the only solution to this real mess we are in — single payer.”

“We wanted to meet with President Obama and he refused us,” said. Dr. Michael Huntington, another Oregon doc who traveled cross country with Hochfeld and a group of other Mad as Hell Doctors. “The public option is a sham. It will cost more and serve fewer people than a single payer health plan. Obama’s plan is going to be one public plan swimming in the shark infested waters of private health insurance industry. The public plan will accept the sick and the poor. The wealthy and the employed will be excluded from the public option. The public option will struggle and fail.”

Dr. Andy Coates traveled from Albany, New York to meet with Obama today.

He too was denied entry..."

[elocs]

1. Could Bush have done it better? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

3. This was pretty good...

and if you forgot your white coat they had extras to hand out.

:)

[bobbolink]

19. yes

:wtf: :crazy: :puke:

[spanone]

2. everything the white house does with the media is a 'photo op'...surprised?

[slipslidingaway]

5. Surprised..not really :( n/t

[slipslidingaway]

4. Video of Obama's speech ...

http://drsforamerica.org/whitehouse/

[sandnsea]

6. Oregon has no public option or single payer

Fuck these doctors too. What the hell is wrong with people anyway. And to think I advocated giving money to these dumbasses. There are plenty of ways to get health care to people besides single payer and that's proven in many countries who provide health care to all their citizens.

[slipslidingaway]

10. In those other countries the insurance companies are highly regulated...

if you listen to the video you will hear that some could accept a strong public option such as the one proposed by Jacob Hacker.

But that is not what is being proposed.

In addition we should have a full debate on various systems and ideas to cover everyone, none of the proposed plans do that.

[sandnsea]

15. And we're proposing to regulate them here

But that'll never happen either because people like you want perfection instead of health care.

And again, the amount of the subsidy is more important than the public option because it doesn't matter who is administrating the plan if the people can't afford to buy it. I don't know why people think the public option is going to be affordable just because it's run by the government. It won't be, not without the same subsidies the private plans get.

We've been debating for decades. Just because YOU personally didn't pay attention doesn't mean it didn't happen. The public said NO to single payer.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Politicians said no to SP, why are you in favor of adding to the bottom line...

of insurance companies.

And where is this money coming from...the Bernanke printing press?

[joeycola]

54. That's a HOOT "the Bernanke printing press?"

[slipslidingaway]

57. Just quoting Bernanke from his 2002 speech :) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke

"...In 2002, when the word "deflation" began appearing in the business news, Bernanke gave a speech about deflation.<25> In that speech, he mentioned that the government in a fiat money system owns the physical means of creating money. Control of the means of production for money implies that the government can always avoid deflation by simply issuing more money. (He referred to a statement made by Milton Friedman about using a "helicopter drop" of money into the economy to fight deflation.) Bernanke's critics have since referred to him as "Helicopter Ben" or to his "helicopter printing press."


http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021121/default.htm

"...What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

Of course, the U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly (although as we will see later, there are practical policies that approximate this behavior).8 Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. To stimulate aggregate spending when short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Fed must expand the scale of its asset purchases or, possibly, expand the menu of assets that it buys. Alternatively, the Fed could find other ways of injecting money into the system--for example, by making low-interest-rate loans to banks or cooperating with the fiscal authorities. Each method of adding money to the economy has advantages and drawbacks, both technical and economic. One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies. Thus, as I have stressed already, prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation..."

[sandnsea]

61. I care about getting people health care

And I gave up pretending we were going to be able to do anything about corporatism decades ago. I just don't give a shit. Health Care. Any way we can get it. That's ALL I care about.

[slipslidingaway]

62. The big difference is that SP advocates want everyone covered ...

and to do so without breaking the bank.

[sandnsea]

66. No, the difference is realistic health care

and how to make it happen as quickly as possible. People can't wait for utopia.

[Generator]

64. The public said no to single payer!?

THE PUBLIC gets nothing but lies and slick propaganda. Are you fucking kidding me? Does the "public" even understand single payer? Do they even know what it is? AND OH YEAH, when was that vote on it that they decided against it? I missed that.

It really kills me because you are in Oregon and I followed your posts for years. Now you make no sense and like others your main goal is DEFENDING Obama. What has happened? Obama took single payer off the table, then he let these pointless town halls go on for weeks, and THEN he let that piece of shit Baucus come out with the worst health care legislation in 30 years- a gift to the insurance industry-and then he goes and pitches it as "reform." I call bullshit on Obama. I don't understand those that defend this. You used to call bullshit on politicians now when Obama does the bullshit it's okay.

[sandnsea]

67. We don't have single payer in Oregon

We have subsidized health insurance because that's the best we could get. I don't live in fantasyland, never have.

[orleans]

76. omg--give it a rest! n/t

[DJ13]

7. Its a shame this was only a photo op instead of a learning session for Obama

Those doctors should be a resource towards improving our health care system, not props.

[sandnsea]

8. Right. He just fell off the turnip truck yesterday

He hasn't been working on health care issues since his first session in Illinois. No. He's just been sitting around with his thumb up his ass.

Good grief. If you've got all the answers, then why don't you run for President.

[DJ13]

9. He's just been sitting around with his thumb up his ass.

He acts like it sometimes.

If he knows what he wants he shouldnt have had Congress (infamous for fucking things up) creating the plan.

[babylonsister]

12. Yea, that worked so well for Clinton, too. nt

[sandnsea]

17. How old are you? n/t

[DJ13]

18. How young are you?

[slipslidingaway]

11. Agreed, they should be a resource n/t

[Barack_America]

20. That's why doctors take surveys about health care.

50 doctors is not a representative sample. I would argue that if Obama truly wants to know what doctors want he should NOT put too much weight on what those 50 docs want.

A majority of doctors currently favor a public option over single-payer. That's what the surveys show.

[DJ13]

23. Agreed, thats why he should have used their wisdom as a resource

I understand having them there to provide a semblance of authority in a photo op, but he should have brought them inside the WH for a Q&A session to get their opinions on the current health care legislation that has been proposed as well.

[Barack_America]

26. This guy crashed the event.

How does he know the background of it?

This was a photo op with a group of doctors supporting the public option. Obama already supports the public option. What's there to talk about with these docs that is worth the President diverting time from the health care fight in Congress, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc?

This single-payer supporter was allowed to crash the party and then gets pissed that the President of the United States didn't clear his schedule for him.

[DJ13]

28. How does he know the background of it?

He's a doctor.

What more do you want?

[Barack_America]

31. Um, how does he know WH staff didn't meet with the docs before the pic?

How does he know that the other docs where invited to a photo op, but given the chance to pass their thoughts off to the President in advance?

Simple.

He doesn't.

[DJ13]

40. He went in with all the doctors

But your never ending defense of all things Obama is very commendable.

[slipslidingaway]

42. And then all the other docs disappeared for a meeting and he sat...

alone in the garden.

:)

Sounds like he went in with them and went out with them.

[Barack_America]

44. Ahem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6710283&mesg_id=6710283

[DJ13]

45. That doesnt say there was anything discussed with Obama at the photo op

Nice try.

[Barack_America]

46. Lol. You really buy into this "decider" thing, don't you.

Hint, the White House is more than just the President.

[DJ13]

50. Look, if nothing was discussed

....white lab coats were handed out to everyone, and they just sat there looking nice for the cameras........

Its a photo op.

Those doctors were as important to Obama at that point as the aircraft carrier was to Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.

All Im saying is if you have gathered that number of doctors together tap into their collective wisdom to tweak the current health care proposal to better serve their patients.

Inviting them in to look nice is a waste of time.

[Barack_America]

53. Your requirement is there had to be a discussion right then, in the Rose Garden...

...for these doctors' opinions to be "officially" heard?

How many hours do you think Obama should have set aside to talk to all 50 doctors? 4? 8?

[DJ13]

58. Can you really "hear" them if you use them as a backdrop?

It was a wasted opportunity.

Maybe Obama was afraid that he wouldnt agree with some of them, so why bother right?

[joeycola]

55. Our Pres. has never cleared his schedule to listen to single payer advocates.

Thats the beef!!

[DJ13]

59. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[joeycola]

77. Back to you.

[slipslidingaway]

27. They certainly did a good job selling the public option because in 2008...

59% of physicians wanted a national health care system to cover everyone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

"...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..."

[bobbolink]

21. the president listens to his republican handlers

Don't need no stinkin' doc's advice.....

:(

[joeycola]

38. and adding more voices such as single payer docs would have

been very productive.

[geek tragedy]

13. He doesn't have time for people who accuse his plan of being a sham?

PNHP gets to sit next to the House Republicans in that regard.

[slipslidingaway]

16. Sorry but that is BS about them sitting next to the Republicans....

in hindsight they never should have cancelled their protest back in March when they were not invited to the WH summit. They only cancelled it because one representative was extended a last minute invitation along with conyers.

Guess they thought the WH would honor the campaign statements about listening to all sides, lesson learned.

Even in the video of Obama yesterday he said we have listened to all sides.

:(

[geek tragedy]

24. He's heard the "single payer or nothing" people out.

They have nothing new to add to the discussion at this point. They are going to oppose any bill that emerges from the Senate.

[slipslidingaway]

32. You did not listen to the video if that is your response, yes they feel SP...

is the best system to cover everyone and control costs for the lowest dollar amount, but if there was a strong PO they might feel differently.

The only reason SP has been kept out of the discussions is because it threatens the profits of corporations and their investors.


http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/december/americans_support_si.php

"...Data derived from polls have long found strong support for “Medicare for All” or single payer national health insurance. For example, a recent AP/Yahoo poll found that 65 percent of Americans agree that the U.S. should “adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayer”. But so do other kinds of data, including data from citizen juries, focus groups, and even a national series of government-sponsored town hall meetings that were carefully designed to solicit support for anything but single payer.

In 2006, a Congressional Task Force created by the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act hosted 29 town hall meetings across the U.S. to ask Americans what type of health care reform they favored. The results of the “Citizen’s Health Care Working Group” were overwhelmingly in favor of single payer health insurance despite considerable bias against single payer health insurance in the way the meetings were structured. In fact, 25 of 29 of the meetings (86 percent) reported that a national health program was their most favored option (see press release and chart, “Congressional Task Force Disregards Public’s Call for National Health Insurance and chart,”).

Similar strong support for Medicare for All was found the last time health reform was on the top of the nation’s agenda, during the Clinton administration. In 1993, a citizen jury sat for 8 hours a day for five days in Washington, DC before making their choice among the then-leading options for health reform: managed competition (supported by Clinton), medical savings accounts, and single payer. Single payer received 17 out of 24 votes (70 percent). There were 5 votes for Clinton’s plan, and none for medical savings accounts. Focus groups conducted that year by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake reported the same strong support for single payer. “After conducting extensive focus groups on health care, pollster Celinda Lake discovered that the more people are told about the Canadian system, “the higher the support goes.” In contrast, according to Lake, working Americans found the managed competition idea “laughable.”

...."

[Barack_America]

14. I demand the leader of the free world meet with me RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

*pounds reflex hammer*

I know I was allowed to crash a party I wasn't even invited to, but that's not enough!

Fuck Afghanistan, Iraq and the economy, I demand the President take time out of his schedule to listen to my ideas on health care whenever I ask!

[slipslidingaway]

22. They have been asking from the beginning, no exaggeration needed...

they have been asking to be heard since the 1980's. A national, not for profit system enjoys the support of a majority of people.

Why do our politicians feel the need to protect the for profit companies instead of the people.

:shrug:


http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

Oct. 2003 Washington Post/ABC News Poll

49. Which would you prefer – (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)

62 % Universal
33% Current
6% No opinion

[Barack_America]

25. That poll is missing an option.

Listen, I support single-payer, but the majority of the country (patients and docs alike) is not with me right now.

So I support a public option that can hopefully serve as a backdoor approach to single-payer.

But this guy, who was let into an event that he wasn't invited to and still finds cause to bitch about the President not setting time aside to meet specifically with him? Please.

Good on him for the bus tour and getting the single-payer message out, but he's taking his role and impact a little too seriously.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. He's saying it was a show, with coustumes and make up

not a meeting of minds. He came as part of a well organized group from my part of the country, where nearly everyone agrees with them, and few want to pay patsy cake with for profit mandates. The doctors were there to speak for us, not for themselves. Making political actions into personal attacks is just so tawdry. They have put in a huge effort to speak for many of us. Unlike those elected and paid to do so.

[Barack_America]

36. How does he know?

He crashed the event. He was not a part of its inception or planning. He crashed the photo op portion of it and then bitched about it being a photo op.

I get e-mails from Doctors for America everyday about conference calls I can participate in and ways I can get my ideas as a medical student known.

Just because there wasn't a Q&A session in the Rose Garden doesn't mean these doctors have been ignored.

[slipslidingaway]

37. You are so right - "They have put in a huge effort to speak for many of us."

:)

[joeycola]

30. I think folks would support a single payer plan IF it was in the

headlines as much as the public option has been. But, that never happened because it was put under the table from the very start and it never had a chance to be in the news.

[slipslidingaway]

52. FAIR then and now...

Then...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1519

"Extra! July/August 1993

Healthcare Reform: Not Journalistically Viable?

In an October 1992 editorial, the New York Times proclaimed that "the debate over healthcare reform is over. Managed competition has won." This outcome, the Times announced (10/10/92), was "delicious" and "wondrous."

In fact, the debate over healthcare reform still goes on, but you might not know it from establishment media. While the New York Times and other elite outlets have rallied around "managed competition"--a system in which private insurance companies provide medical care through giant HMOs--grassroots activists continue to push for a "single-payer" system, similar to Canada's, in which insurance companies would be eliminated from the health care picture and government would provide universal coverage. Single-payer proponents often refer to managed competition as the "Insurance Industry Preservation Act."

The media slant in favor of managed competition seen before the 1992 election (see Extra!, 1-2/93) continues. While the phrase "managed competition" appeared in 62 New York Times news stories in the six months following the 1992 election, "single-payer" appeared in only five news stories during that period--never in more than a single-sentence mention...."


Now...

ABC Censors Obama's Longtime Doctor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biTdTvg6K7w

"Sign the petition at fair.org to demand that TV networks to stop censoring the debate ..."

[slipslidingaway]

39. Not sure which option is missing, the poll is from 2003 before the ...

public was sold on the new way to keep for profit companies in business.

You can look up the poll and see all the options.

Many people would like their voices heard, he is not doing this for himself and not demanding a one on one meeting as you suggest.

[Barack_America]

43. You're right. It's not missing an option, it's just not relevant.

Thanks for the correction.

[slipslidingaway]

48. You are right about one thing, the opinion of the majority of the people...

is not relevant to most of our politicians.

From 1993 and sadly still true today...

Second article at this link, it begins by saying how people were protesting in front of the NY Times for their lack of coverage of a single-payer system... some things never change.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Norman_Solomon/Violence_TV_TTMLG.html

"...Near the end of the discussion, anchor Robert MacNeil offered Dr. Woolhandler the last word "since you're in the minority"-to which she responded: "Robert, I'm not in a minority. Polls are showing two-thirds of the American people support government-funded national health insurance."

...Because it won't "provide Americans with the care they need," the doctor replied.

But she could have offered another response: If much of the public supports national health insurance, and it's not debated seriously in Washington or the national media because of the power of special interests like the insurance lobby, what does that say about the health of our democracy?"

[Barack_America]

51. Um no. Considering the public option was available in that old poll...

There is no way of knowing how many Americans would've preferred the PO over single-payer.

[slipslidingaway]

56. Here's the thing, for decades the majority of Americans have favored...

a national health care system that covers everyone, but each time the politicians take that off the table in favor of a new scheme that leaves the for profit insurers in business.

If over half the country is in favor of national health care why are people at the top changing course and trying to sell them something else.

We need someone to step up and fight for the people, not the for profit companies. Nobody is saying it will be easy, but mandating that people have to buy insurance and not making the public option available to everyone is something the Republicans could not have dreamed of passing.

Why avoid the most simple, cost effective system that will cover everyone and has majority support among the people. Go out and build support and sell the plan just like they have been doing with the public option. The Republicans are already fighting a SP system, but the Dems are not even pushing for one.

The insurance companies and drug companies are running adds in support of insurance reform, they just have to water down the PO behind the scenes, because they know it is better for them than a SP system.

[saracat]

75. Someone had to take his role seriously.Apparently the WH didn't

Someone had to at least try to ensure equal representation.

[joeycola]

33. Many are misleading the public by referring to this Publc option as 'Universal"

which we KNOW wil NOT be. Even Obama said it would only cover 5 % I think.

[slipslidingaway]

41. They have backed away from using the word universal, the talking points...

prepared by the Herndon Alliance are posted on the Third Way site. Obama quoted the CBO estimate which stated that 3.2% would be enrolled in the PO by 2019, in his speech he said less than 5%...sounds better than 3.2.

:)


Links here for talking points...I posted a lot of stuff in that thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6289091&mesg_id=6289091

"• Don’t say “universal” health care. Talk about “quality, affordable health care for
all.” (But remember—quality, affordable health care for all is largely a message
about access.)

• Don’t compare the U.S. to other countries, or assert that America does not
provide quality health care. (i.e. Do not cite statistics that say the U.S. is 37th in
the world in health outcomes)."

[joeycola]

47. hey thanks slip.. I had not seen that post. But those talking points

are EVERYWHERE.



http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/235/Talking_Points_-_Responding_to_Attacks.pdf

2. Tap into key values the public places on reform:

» Stability and peace of mind
» The middle class
» Choice and control
» Quality
» Continuity—keeping your current plan and doctor
» Value—paying less and getting more
» Affordability
» Patriotism—“uniquely American solution”

[slipslidingaway]

49. You're welcome and yes they are, the only governor that was a Third Way...

member now holds a cabinet position...FWIW.

Third Way also argued for immunity during the recent FISA legislation.

[joeycola]

34. Remember how outraged the Left was when Bush cheney only allowed those who agreed

with them to attend rallies.? I do.


.....“The doctors in the White House will tell you that they support single payer,” Dr. Tsou said. “They want to see something done. But whatever the something is is going to be totally influenced by the insurance and drug lobby. And that something is going to put more billions of dollars of our money into their pockets. I resent that. It’s a waste of our money. We know a better solution — single payer. We need to have the courage to confront the insurance industry. I would urge members of Congress to vote against the way Obamacare is fashioned right now. Obama’s health plan is being fashioned by the industry.”

Dr. Tsou said he supported Obama during 2008, but he’s having second thoughts now.

Sam Husseini, a single payer activist, said after the event that Obama used the docs as props.

“Insurance companies are cherry picking patients,” Husseini said. “Now Obama is cherry picking doctors.”

[slipslidingaway]

60. Amazing how quickly people shift when the letter after the name...

is changed.

:(

[saracat]

74. Exactly. Some have become what they hated.Some are like Bushies.

[slipslidingaway]

63. Olbermann said the same thing, video...

Countdown - Mad As Hell Doctors' Dr. Paul Hochfeld discusses botched health care debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_hmiLzBEFw

No problem with a photo op and pay back for working on the campaign, just know that is what it is and not a true representation of opinions from across the country.

[Generator]

65. Well I would have no problem with docs as props

If it were for some real change. Instead it's just to get something passed-anything passed. And the point of this is? OH yes, we want perfection-oh bullshit on that. We want the truth. The truth is the insurance companies own politic ans and own much of this country. Until that's fixed-it's all pointless bullshit.

[slipslidingaway]

69. We know the insurance companies will find a way to increase their...

profits as this is their responsibility to shareholders.

Imagine if the Republicans told us that they would mandate insurance purchases and that there would be a PO in which they estimated just over 3% would be enrolled and it would provide competition for the for profit companies.

I wonder how many people think it would be a good idea.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

68. What an insult to the doctors who participated.

Typical of the all-or-nothing crowd. Want a seat at the table to disrupt because they aren't open to a public option. In fact, they spend all their time distorting a public option. What do they want to discuss?

[slipslidingaway]

70. Did you read anything on the WH site or hear anything on the corporate...

news that many of these doctors were invited because of their prior affiliation in getting Obama elected...I did not.

Until I read the article yesterday about the group Doctors for America being well represented and looked to see who the group was I had no idea they existed.

If you want to invite your supporters to the WH that is fine, but people should know that, instead of thinking this was some random group selected from each state.

Reward and photo op fine - I just like to know.


They are not open to the proposed plans because they do not control costs, cover everyone and will be expensive in comparison to a SP bill.

Here is what Dr. McCanne said of the original public/private plan introduced by Hacker, but the current proposals are nothing like the original plan.

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/evolution-of-the-healthcare-debate.pdf

page 10

"...Also, Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program offers sincere praise, concluding: “Jacob Hacker’s proposal is a very welcome addition at a time that all options should be on the table. It is such a compelling model that it may shove all others off of the table - except single payer - then we can get down to a serious discussion about reform that really works.”


What is also said in the above link...page 12

"...But if the rules for public-private competition are poorly thought out, an inefficient private system will simply suck subsidies from the public sector, sullying the promise of universal coverage..."

That is what many are seeing and why they oppose the current proposals.


You need to provide links to the distortions you mention, if anything it has been the other way around where public option advocates have said that the PO single-payer or just like Medicare.


"In fact, they spend all their time distorting a public option."

[ProSense]

71. Keep dragging out that 2007 article. Here's a clue

more than 70 percent of doctors support a public option.

[slipslidingaway]

72. That is what people got behind back in 2007 and 2008, look at the ...

endorsement letters from the unions.

Where are the links to the distortions of the PO that you claimed in your post, if you make accusations then you should be able to document them.

Re the poll...the association between Medicare and the public option had an effect and now people associate the PO with Medicare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6710283&mesg_id=6711317

All in how the questions are presented and what has been sold by the media...

a public option similar to Medicare, open to all would have the support of more people. Since early last year the public has been told the public option would be like Medicare and that people could choose, but which bill is that?

From your link....

"Dr. Salomeh Keyhani, one of the researchers, says doctors already have experience with government-run health care, with Medicare. "And she says the survey shows that, overall, they like it." Keyhani adds that "physicians have sort of signaled that a public option that's similar in design to Medicare would be a good way of ensuring patients get the care that they need" (Shapiro, 9/14)."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6365319&mesg_id=6365319

The Power of the Word Medicare -
Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion
Fri Aug 21st 2009, 07:23 PM

When the word Medicare is used in the various polls, the number of people who favor the plan automatically jumps, it makes no difference if the question relates to the public option or a national insurance system such as single-payer...the word "Medicare" has a favorable connotation.

The Kaiser Health Tracking poll is one of the few recent polls that asks about a single-payer plan or government run insurance plan for all, many of the polls leave SP out altogether and that includes the widely cited poll from June saying that 72% of people want a public option.

What Kaiser did, at times, was half sample certain questions.

For instance if they were sampling 1200 people, they would ask about a public plan "like Medicare" to only half of the people. The other half they would leave out the word "Medicare" and the support for a public plan, or single-payer, would drop.

Back in July their poll showed a jump in support for SP and I posted about it below, when there was a half sample I used the highest number, regardless of whether or not it was about a public option or SP.

Now their August poll has just been released and they did not half sample the public option or single-payer questions, what they did do is include the word "Medicare" when asking about the public option and exclude it from the question about single-payer, guess what happened to the single-payer poll...it dropped.

In addition to the charts that they post, they also post the questions with the numbers listed for each question from prior polls. You would think there might be consistency in listing prior numbers, but that is not what they did with the August list, they posted the higher number for the public option and the lower number for SP.

[slipslidingaway]

80. Awaiting your links to the distortions claimed in your post. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

73. What an insult this whole process has been to doctors who want to

use profits for health care for everyone, instead of lining the pockets of CEO's and investors.

:(

So many people fighting for the insurance companies instead of demanding our Party stand up to them.

How do you win a fight if you silence the harshest critics of those who hold power.

Please do not tell me that you are fighting the entrenched interests when you invite them to the discussions and private meetings and exclude those who have been fighting the For Profit companies for decades.

President Obama calls on Karen Ignagni of AHIP to speak on HC reform, invited to the WH summit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gTFzG7Kaa4


Invitation denied...

Dr. Marcia Angell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQNphM6xUsE

"The reason our health system is in such trouble is that it is set up to generate profits, not to provide care..."


What an insult indeed!

[joeycola]

78. I just wanted for single payer to be given a fair chance to present their

case/arguments for single payer--but that never happened.

[slipslidingaway]

79. That is exactly what SP advocates wanted, a chance to join discussions

instead of being excluded from the beginning.

Now some people are annoyed because they are not backing what they consider to be a bad plan.

:shrug: