Gay Patriot Header Image

Doctors Overwhelming Oppose Obamacare

While the President may claim doctors back his plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system, a recent poll tells an entirely different story:

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll had a pretty large sample size, “with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part.”  And it corresponds to what I’ve heard from the doctors I know, with most (but not all) opposed to the various Democratic plans.

Maybe they’re aware of the problems in Massachusetts.

The poll offers this disturbing statistic: 45% of doctors would consider quitting under Obamacare.  Guess that means not all of us will get to keep our doctor.  I doubt most major news outlets will pick up this poll, but given the new media, this information will out.

Share

33 Comments

  1. Umm, sorry Dan but Maxine Waters suggests that calling it ‘ObamaCare’ means you’re racist.

    That’s why I call it KopechneCare, in honor of the late Senator Kennedy or more specifically, one of his victims. I mean, I care what Waters thinks. (not)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 17, 2009 @ 2:14 am - September 17, 2009

  2. IBD is hardly a source for reliable information.

    I mean seriously – does anyone in their right mind believe for one second that nearly half the doctors in America will stop praciticing later this year – because what….they will have 30 million more paying customers? This is downright idiotic.

    Here is a poll LINK that finds the direct opposite – that in fact a great majority of doctors actually support the public option.
    Over 2000 physicians, random survey, done by far more reputable people – actual doctors at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and published in a peer reviewed journal.

    Oh, and the AMA supports Obamamcare with a public option as well.
    Sorry, the IBD poll is literally unbelievable.

    Comment by Tano — September 17, 2009 @ 2:24 am - September 17, 2009

  3. does anyone in their right mind believe for one second that nearly half the doctors in America will stop praciticing later this year – because what….they will have 30 million more paying customers?

    No, not because of that. Rather, because a crypto-fascist government will be grinding them into the ground… and they know it, and don’t relish the prospect.

    Obamamcare

    Tano, you’re a raaaaaysist! (See comment #1 for explanation.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 17, 2009 @ 2:36 am - September 17, 2009

  4. Oh, Tano, go read the details of the poll you link. Do you read anything, even the articles which, you contend, favor the point of view your offer?

    What’s your source for the unreliability of IBD’s polls?

    And note the passage I quoted above, refers to plans under consideration. In the NPR article, the key question was whether “hysicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options.” It didn’t ask about the specific plans under consideration.

    The author of the article makes the leap, the poll itself does not.

    Just because the AMA supports something doesn’t mean its members do.

    So, please, Tano, read the stuff you link and the posts to which you comment–and think before you speak.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 17, 2009 @ 2:40 am - September 17, 2009

  5. I am beginning to seriously believe that THIS is a video of Tardo reading Gay Patriot.

    Tardo,

    The poll doesnt say they are going to quit over the “next year”. It says only that they would consider ending their practice or retiring early. It also says 70% of them think obama cannot deliver what he promises. Which is that he will deliver care to millions more Americans with no more doctors than we have now, and care will cost less and be of better quality.

    In other words hes a liar. Just as Joe Wilson said.

    Which is probably why Democrats, in full-on desperation mode, have resorted the the “everyone who disagrees with us is racist la-la-la-la-la I cant hear you la-la-la-la” defense.

    Disapproval of Obamacare, by the way, has hit another all time high of 55%, and VDH, a pretty sharp guy, is predicting another 5-10 point drop based on Democrats calling the majority of Americans racist for opposing it.

    Can you say “implosion?” Good! I knew you could!

    (BTW: IBD ranks just about middle of the road in terms of accuracy, higher than both ABC and Gallup, while NPR is not even rated because they are not a recognized pollster)

    Comment by American Elephant — September 17, 2009 @ 3:24 am - September 17, 2009

  6. The source for unreliability is that the results are unfavorable to Obama.

    Again, Dan, you’re making the mistake of assuming that Tano is attempting to even be relevant to the facts. He is not. He is living in the same world as Maxine Waters, Jimmy Carter, and the rest of the Obama Party, who are screaming that black skin means you are always right and that anyone who criticizes you or opposes what you’re doing is a racist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 17, 2009 @ 3:27 am - September 17, 2009

  7. The poll jives with my experience anecdotally.

    Four friends who are specialists and my own PCP are all
       a.) rather lefty and
       b.) fighting this tooth and nail.

    The only professional who would voice some positive noises about the effort is my dentist. And he volunteered that he would be retiring in two years irrespective of outcome.

    No, this bill is a dog with fleas and as a fellow Mainer noted – if Olympia Snowe thinks it’s a bad bill, you know it must be horrific.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — September 17, 2009 @ 7:55 am - September 17, 2009

  8. I have been posing this question on blogs for weeks, and never gotten an answer from an ObamaCare supporter: How do you add 30,000,000 patients and 0 doctors to the health care system without rationing or lowering quality of care?

    And it looks like it’s actually worse if doctors are going to be driven out of the system.

    Comment by V the K — September 17, 2009 @ 9:21 am - September 17, 2009

  9. V the K,

    How dare you confront hope and change with those horribly racist things like facts and numbers?

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 17, 2009 @ 9:26 am - September 17, 2009

  10. Dan,
    Will you please stop with your silly, insulting mantra about reading the articles I link. This is not the first time you say this, and it is mindless. Of course I read the damn thing.

    [First, Tano, this is the first time I’ve suggested you didn’t read the article you linked; I’ve said repeatedly before that often don’t read the posts to which you attach your comments. If you had “read the damn thing” as you claimed, you would have been able to distinguish the two polls.]

    Are you trying to argue that 2/3 of doctors may support the public option but 2/3 of them, at the same time, oppose “the overhaul under consideration in Washington” (whatever the hell that means)?

    [Whatever the hell that means? Again, at the risk of being insulting and mindless, let me ask once again, did you even read the post to which you attached your comment? It’s called “Doctors Overwhelming Oppose Obamacare.” By the word, ‘Obamacare,’ I refer to the various Democratic plans under consideration, you know the various bills being debated in Congress. And please be careful with your use of article, you say, “the” public option about a poll which did not ask about a particular plan.

    So, what explains this discrepancy? I don’t know, but my hunch would be that doctors, in the abstract, like most Americans like the idea of a public option, but when they see an actual plan to enact this option, they become aware of the consequences. –Dan]

    If anything the study I linked to is far more to the point, because at least it refers to some specifics in some plans.

    Comment by Tano — September 17, 2009 @ 9:39 am - September 17, 2009

  11. nate silver has a pretty convincing takedown of this poll; he knows a few things about statistics and polls. as a reminder, IBD was the same publication that falsely asserted that stephen hawking would not receive care under a nationalized system of health care. hawking, of course, is a british citizen, and felt inclined to refute IBD’s assertion by noting that he has received exemplary nationalized health care his whole life.

    Comment by Chad — September 17, 2009 @ 11:08 am - September 17, 2009

  12. Thank you for linking to that article chad. Oh wait, you didn’t.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 17, 2009 @ 11:14 am - September 17, 2009

  13. Um, Chad, when I get a moment, I’ll have to check Nate Silver’s takedown; he’s usually pretty even-handed, but not always right.

    What does IBD’s inaccurate editorial have to do with the accuracy of the poll? Different departments run each. IBD, as I recall, upon learning its error, quickly apologized.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 17, 2009 @ 11:16 am - September 17, 2009

  14. Dan, can you post a link when you find the nate silver thing?

    I know the comments show an issue with the sample size, but then they point out the NPR survey has the same problem.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 17, 2009 @ 11:21 am - September 17, 2009

  15. Happy to oblige, Livewire.

    IBD/TIPP Doctors Poll Is Not Trustworthy

    Some fun exercepts:
    The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I’m aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points — the highest of any pollster that we tested.
    As we learned during the Presid[e]ntial campaign — when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 — the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they’re doing.
    They say, somewhat ambiguously: “Responses are still coming in.” This is also highly unorthodox. Professional pollsters generally do not report results before the survey period is compete.
    There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn’t bother to define the term “practicing physician”, which could mean almost anything. Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.

    McCain will take the youth vote 74 to 22? Wow – that is EXCELLENT news for John McCain.

    Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid, “conservatives.” Past performance is no indication of future results.

    Comment by torrentprime — September 17, 2009 @ 11:23 am - September 17, 2009

  16. livewire–if you have google, you can find the link.

    dan–you’re right, the editorial doesn’t bear directly on the reliability of the poll. but that wasn’t my point. IBD has been less than reliable in the past w/r/t health care issues. this poll may be an extension of that trend. at a minimum, given their track record, we should treat their poll with some skepticism.

    Comment by Chad — September 17, 2009 @ 11:40 am - September 17, 2009

  17. I have been to several healthcare town hall meetings in NC and SC. All of the DRs there were opposed to this plan.
    And inc ase Tano does not know this the AMA is only comprised of 17% of all the US Drs and most of them are interns who get the first year free.

    Comment by PatriotMom — September 17, 2009 @ 12:03 pm - September 17, 2009

  18. The reason so many physicians oppose Obamacare is very simple.

    They realize that they are dealing with a moronic fool who insists that they go around doing unnecessary amputations and tonsillectomies for money.

    And, since the AMA pointed those facts out to Obama, that makes them a racist organization. No surprise, then, that Nate Silver, torrentprime, and the rest of the Obamabots are out to smear them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 17, 2009 @ 12:06 pm - September 17, 2009

  19. A significant number of my older friends are in the medical professions, and almost to the man they are ALL planning to or have taken early retirement. Gone are the days of the kindly old family physician confidently practicing into his 80’s. Now they’re looking for practice exit-strategies, moving their assets offshore, or just plain retiring and moving to Hawaii.

    At a purely-social gather last Fall, it seemed half the conversations were about Lietchenstein asset trusts,Beliezem tax havens, the escalating cost of staying in practice, or retirement locales. One 60-ish dentist friend in the group complained about his group practice having to spend $40,000 the last time the government mandated they change how they kept and handled their medical files. He swears he’s not paying for another mandate out of his pockets again. If one of his younger partners wasn’t currently recovering from serious cardiac issues, he’d already be retired. Even though he’s going to have a reduction in his income and life-style since he’s retiring at 60, he stays it’s still worth getting out now before “change happens”.

    I don’t know of one member of the group who’s planning to be still in practice five years from now…..out of many a dozen or so in the medical professions.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 17, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - September 17, 2009

  20. God don’t we get tired of trying to educate the publci school educated liberals?
    Entities who have tried state run health care, like TN, MA and Canada did in fact realize a decline in doctors. They fled. For the same reason those of us in Pennsylvania were going to loose our doctors if the Commonwealth didn’t act. The Commonwealth had to start subsidizing their malpractice insurance premiums. Not getting tort reform was putting doctors out of business because their insurance premiums got unbelievably high. Liberal policies. No tort rreform, price controls. In America, you could still move to a more free envirnment, and doctors did it in TN and MA. Who would go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt to become a doctor, then have the government step in furthur than they already have, to micro manage your business. I swear, the liberal Democrats won’t stop or listen to reason until we have Soviet style health care.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 17, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - September 17, 2009

  21. Behind a firewall so I’ll read the rest when I get home. Thank you TP.

    Still it’s a self selecting reply with a small sample size, but aren’t a lot of those questions what we all question about polls, including oversampling and the like?

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 17, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - September 17, 2009

  22. “No tort rreform, price controls. In America, you could still move to a more free envirnment, …”

    Gene,
    I do have some sympathies toward the tort reform issue, but i think you should face some basic facts about it. Efforts at tort reform are the opposite of any “freedom agenda”. The ability to sue for tort is one of the oldest principles of Anglo-Saxon common law. Its not some new liberal idea – it is a core principle in our system of government. Efforts at tort reform, whatever their value, are still efforts to either protect certain elites from the responsibility for their actions, or to limit the power of juries to assess damages that they may deem appropriate.

    Once again, I am not arguing against doing these reforms, but they should be seen for what they are. A restriction of general freedom for the advantage of the few.

    Comment by Tano — September 17, 2009 @ 2:56 pm - September 17, 2009

  23. Efforts at tort reform, whatever their value, are still efforts to either protect certain elites from the responsibility for their actions, or to limit the power of juries to assess damages that they may deem appropriate.

    Well, then, let’s see what the “socialized medicine” countries that trial lawyer puppets Barack Obama and Tano adore do in this regard.

    Stunned by huge awards handed out by juries? In Canada, judges try the vast majority of malpractice cases.

    Outraged by the contingency fees of plaintiffs’ attorneys that gobble up one-third or more of court-awarded damages? Germany bans them, while the United Kingdom limits a victorious plaintiff’s attorney to twice his customary fee.

    Skeptical of dueling expert witnesses? German judges appoint their own neutral experts.

    Sick and tired of litigation, period? In New Zealand, malpractice cases bypass the courthouse. They’re adjudicated through a no-fault system run by the government.

    But wait, there’s more!

    In 1978, the Canadian Supreme Court limited damages for pain and suffering. Adjusted for inflation, the cap now is just over $300,000.

    Perhaps if Barack Obama had actually studied law instead of simply majoring in Blackness, he and his talking-point parrots like Tano would know this. Or perhaps they do know it and are simply too beholden to protecting the trial lawyers and the bribes the Obama Party receives from them to do anything about it, like Barack Obama’s mouthpiece admits.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 17, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - September 17, 2009

  24. #22 Tano, I agree with you entirely.
    It bothers me that govt has to step in here and restrict a jurys options on even punitive awards. Ican be much more of a libertarian than a conservative on some issues. I wish govt didn’t have to restrict drugs the way we do either. I’d just let dope heads take enough to off themselves. But I know in our society, our government won’t allow that and will make the masses pay for treatment of the dope heads, so I am therefore for drug laws that at least prevent to some degree drugs falling into the hands of young people. I wish tort reform wasn’t necessary as well. But wild awards are out of hand hurting us all.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 17, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - September 17, 2009

  25. As we learned during the Presid[e]ntial campaign — when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 — the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they’re doing.

    Thats funny! They were more accurate with the presidential election results than ABC, NBC, CBS, Gallup and Newsweek which the left LOVE to cite.

    1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
    1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
    2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
    3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
    4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
    5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
    5. ARG (10/25-27)*
    6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
    6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
    7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
    8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
    9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
    10. FOX (11/1-2)
    11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
    12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
    13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
    14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
    15. Marist College (11/3)
    16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
    17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
    18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
    19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
    20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

    Oh, and even Gallup’s distorted polls have Obama and his policies tanking. Even they say only 43% of ADULTS approve of Obama on healthcare, only 46% approve of his handling of the economy, 51% disapprove of his economic policies, etc

    Not hard to imagine with a public that generally opposes Obamas health-care policies, that opposition is higher among those whose careers will be most directly affected.

    If Obama is really going to provide care to millions more with our current supply of doctors [he cant], that means far more work for doctors

    and if he really is going to make it cheaper, that means cost controls, which means paying doctors less.

    Thanks God Americans are waking up to the deep dishonesty of this president and this party.

    Comment by American Elephant — September 17, 2009 @ 5:43 pm - September 17, 2009

  26. #24, At bare minimum, implement looser pays including the litigator. It will force people to consider if suit is indeed the best option. Those with a case will go forward and should not be restricted.

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — September 17, 2009 @ 5:45 pm - September 17, 2009

  27. Just because the AMA supports something doesn’t mean its members do.

    You mean like the AARP?

    Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - September 17, 2009

  28. Efforts at tort reform, whatever their value, are still efforts to either protect certain elites from the responsibility for their actions, or to limit the power of juries to assess damages that they may deem appropriate.

    Or to limit elite trial lawyers from going on fishing expeditions in, say, South America to gin up business. Or maybe it’s to prevent oxygen thieves from being rewarded with multi-billions of dollars for their stupidity which results in costs to business.

    Efforts at tort reform are the opposite of any “freedom agenda”.

    It would seem to me that the costs involved to a business who has to shell out beau coup cash to a dumbass who puts a cup of hot coffee between her legs, plus the cost of signage and printing warning labels on the cups is the opposite of freedom.

    Funny how liberals never seem to include attorneys or university proffesors in their bitching about profit.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 17, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - September 17, 2009

  29. Did anyone notice more Obama lies.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 17, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - September 17, 2009

  30. #29: Yes. Wasn’t it interesting to find out that the guy who lost his insurance and then had it reinstated, died 3.5 years later but not as soon as we were lead to believe?

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — September 17, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - September 17, 2009

  31. #22: “Efforts at tort reform, whatever their value, are still efforts to either protect certain elites from the responsibility for their actions, or to limit the power of juries to assess damages that they may deem appropriate.”

    What a shock. Tano views the issue of civil litigation through the same glassy-eyed leftist prism through which he views everything in life. And as always, his leftist theoretical assessment doesn’t even bear a passing resemblance to reality. Tano, it’s no surprise that you equate “efforts at tort reform” with efforts to protect “certain elites from the responsibility for their actions” because of course every defendant is some privileged, powerful sociopath leading reckless unaccountable lives on the backs of the powerless. Presently, every single person with a job in California, if they are terminated, has absolute freedom to choose from 20 or more different lawyers to file a lawsuit alleging that their termination was discriminatory even if they know that it wasn’t. For the defendant, it costs a MINIMUM of $50,000 (usually closer to $100,000) to WIN such a case. For the plaintiff in these actions, there is NO consequence for doing this. The plaintiff walks away, shrugs their shoulders, and figures “better luck next time.” Requiring such litigants to pay the defendant’s costs and attorneys’ fees (or more realistically, hitting them with a judgment that will hover over them and their property for a decade or more) would do NOTHING to prevent legitimately aggrieved plaintiffs from seeking and obtaining justice and NOTHING to shield discriminatory or negligent defendants from being held civilly liable.

    However, such a system would actually require those utilizing the justice system illegitimately to undertake the financial and personal responsibility for doing so. And that is why you will never support an “innovative” idea like a “loser pays” system. You categorically reject the concept of personal responsibility and find it repugnant. You believe it is the responsibility of corporations to pay 50-100K every time a terminated employee feels like rolling the dice in front of a judge or jury on a frivolous discrimination case because they have nothing to lose and nothing better to do.

    Comment by Sean A — September 17, 2009 @ 10:57 pm - September 17, 2009

  32. ‘. You categorically reject the concept of personal responsibility and find it repugnant. ”

    Sean, I don’t know much about you since we havent interacted much. And I dont really plan to do so in the future until you start taking your meds. Your comment is a totally out of control rant that has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments or my beleifs. Scroll back up and read my original comment – you will see that I express sympathy for the notion of tort reform – my only argument was that it be seen for what it is, relative to questions regarding freedom vs. government intrusion. And the person I addressed seemed (for the first time in his life) to agree with me.

    If you want to make speeches, and you want to combat caricatures of “libruls’, then knock yourself out. Just please keep my name out of it.

    Comment by Tano — September 18, 2009 @ 1:42 am - September 18, 2009

  33. And I dont really plan to do so in the future until you start taking your meds.

    As usual, when Tano loses an argument, he resorts to insults.

    Furthermore, he demonstrates that Obama Party members are so hateful and bigoted that they want to use psychiatric drugs against anyone who dares disagree with them or criticize them. They intend to use the power of government to punish anyone who disagrees with them politically, just as the Obama campaign’s minions did in illegally looking up Joe the Plumber’s records.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2009 @ 3:07 am - September 18, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.