well, I thought this was settled – but apparently not. Bonus points to Fox News and Bill O’Reilly for pissing off the New England Journal of Medicine. “Fair and balanced” indeed.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
well, I thought this was settled – but apparently not. Bonus points to Fox News and Bill O’Reilly for pissing off the New England Journal of Medicine. “Fair and balanced” indeed.
{ 6 comments }
Hey, I’m for health reform. The costs are out of control and need to be reigned in. If you have more care, you should have to pay more. If you don’t need as much, you shouldn’t have to pay as much.
There is a system that pretty much ignores that, called “Medicare,” and it has resulted in requiring medical care to be provided at a loss for some providers, so the providers are bowing out & not acceptign medicare patients.
I don’t know that I think medical insurance reform is a good idea — see paragraph above. It is pretty clear that medical costs are going to continue to increase, and either insurance rate will increase or insurance companies will quit offering coverage; a government system to keep rates from increasing while costs are rising is obviously going to kill insurance. Requiring companies to accept patients that are guarenteed to cost more is going to make insurance more expensive (duh), and a government system that….see above.
You can always ask a question to which the answer is YES, and polls directed at getting support are pretty common. So what will the answer be if the question reflects reality, like:
Are you in favor of doing the same medical procedures for less income?
or maybe
Are you in favor of of paying more to maintain your current insurance coverage so that health care coverage can be expanded to others?
I like that one. I think that one needs to be on a poll.
The New England Journal of Medicine is notably biased towards particular political positions, and as such is not a reliable source of scientific information on any political subject.
Neither is the Union of Concerned Scientists, or the AMA, for that matter. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and those strange bedfellows breed confirmation bias like rabbits.
IBD is slightly more trustworthy, because they know they aren’t scientists and therefore don’t have an unjustified opinion of their own objectivity.
Yours,
Tom
A few points.
Most doc’s don’t belong to the AMA.
Support for reform and support for the currently proposed monstrosity are 2 different things.
Should a doc’s opinion on the bill carry more weight than any other citizen? Seems to me in some ways they have a conflict of interest thing going on.
Awesome. More links to Aziz’ blog. Dean’s probably in quite the charitable mood tonight – imagine what you could get him to do for you now!
maggie – labrat,
> Should a doc’s opinion on the bill carry more weight than any other citizen? Seems to me in some ways they have a conflict of interest thing going on.
Based on the way they buy and sell each other’s votes our Congresspeople and Senators seem to be pure conflict of interest.
Yours,
Tom
Comments on this entry are closed.