Those people in white lab jackets behind the president aside, most doctors in the United States, like most doctors in the United States Congress, oppose ObamaCare. More revealing than the New England Journal of Medicine's findings that two-thirds of American doctors oppose the health care-welfare bill is the startling statistic that 45 percent of American doctors "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" should ObamaCare pass. Add doctor shortages to the long list of reasons to oppose the Democrats' plan to reform American health care.

This blog is intellectually dishonest.

It's a right wing newspaper poll with a very self-selected applicant pool. Like polling Glenn Beck's house on Thanksgiving. I say that in case anyone else was duped by the catchy headline like I was. There, I just saved you a couple clicks of research.

In case anyone is interested in independent thought and wants to study up, read below. If not, enjoy the Kool-Aid.

James

Scientific Versus Self-Selected

Opinion polls, like other surveys, are a way of inferring the characteristics of a large group—called "the population"—from a small sample of it. In order for this inference to be cogent, the sample must accurately represent the population. Thus, the main error to avoid is an unrepresentative sample.

For example, the most famous polling fiasco was the Literary Digest poll in the 1936 presidential election. The magazine surveyed over two million people, chosen from the magazine's subscriber list, phone books, and car registrations. Even though the sample was enormous, it was unrepresentative of the population of voters because not everyone could afford a phone or car during the Depression, and those who could tended to vote Republican in greater numbers than those who couldn't. As a result of this biased sample, the poll showed Republican Alf Landon beating the actual winner, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

I'm done with the blog henceforth, although I would like to correct one more thing. The "health care industry" (the very term is repugnant, but it's what we have and the reality is equally repugnant) is extremely protectionist. If conservatives lived by their free market fundamentalism, there would be a lifting of the market protections and a massive influx of foreign-born and trained doctors. Some for-profit hospitals use these doctors, who are competent and perform as well as US doctors, albeit with a slight accent, but they are opposed by privileged US doctors.

If doctors are going to leave their practice because of "Obamacare", which is simply a subsidy to private corporations, then they didn't take their Hippocratic Oath seriously and they are in the profession for Corvettes and caviar, not care.

The Hippocratic Oath

"To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

Notice the bold passages. They would give any "free market" fundie, mercenary doctor, or Glenn Beck conniptions.

PMA I'm assuming you're against doctors doing abortions, that's in the oath also.

So you want free health care,well then we should have free food after all we won't need the free medical if we starve to death, so having free food would seem to me to be a higher priority.

Well, then we'd also die if we didn't have proper clothing in extreme weather conditions, so let's add free clothing.

Of course the medical care,free food and the free clothing won't do you any good if don't have shelter to protect you from the elements so add free housing for everyone.

Whose going to pay for all this? Why the government of course. Where do they get that money? Who cares right?

Simple economics and mathematics would dictate that there is nothing that is free.

For numbnutz like PMA, this does not seem to compute.

Neither does the incentive that profit certainly brings to the equation when considering the production of good and services.

"If conservatives lived by their free market fundamentalism, there would be a lifting of the market protections and a massive influx of foreign-born and trained doctors."

Why? Would you not rather have as your doctor a good student from the United States (or abroad) trained at Harvard Medical School, working at Mass. General than a foreign-born doctor trained and doing residence work in some septic third world hell hole?

Personally, I feel much better when I go to a doctor who has worked hard and has gone to some of the better medical schools in this country (and the world) and have adhered to challenging academics and standards. And this is why we need to maintain the incentive of practicing medicine and for doing medical research and need to keep the business of medicine profitable and attractive enough for people to go into it and continue to stay in it and be innovative.

It's so naïve that some do not understand that, in most cases, altruism has nothing to do with success.

All of the feel good lefty pie-in-the-sky tripe about the Hippocratic Oath and how people should just automatically do the right thing – or else, is not what makes the real world a better place to live in.

James, are you saying the New England Journal of Medicine is a dishonest poll of what doctors think because it's not representative of doctors?

Polling doctors about themselves is biased?

Is that what you're saying?????

Doctors leave medical school with upwards of $250K in student loans, trust me the life of most doctors isn't corvettes and caviar. It may be by the time they have been practicing for 25 years. But by that time they will have earned it.

"Simple economics and mathematics would dictate that there is nothing that is free."

You've never loved anybody then...

and NR,

I believe it is important to challenge the notion that it is an accurate poll based on defining the sample and interpolating to a population. Important questions would be, What percentage of M.D.s have a NE Journal subscription? What percentage of that read it? Of those that were mailed a survey and filled it out, what similar factors did they share for reasons in wanting to respond?

This is a common problem I have with most political polls, whether they swing left or right, as a rational person needs to work hard to figure out the methods let alone decipher what the sample was. One simple bone to pick is that most political polls are conducted by phone calls to homes. The sample is always under-representing people like myself who have no home phone line, which also happens to be the majority of people 18-30ish.

And yet we're not talking about a simple poll that swings left or right. We're talking of a poll whose constituents are exactly the people it refers to...namely, doctors. No matter the percentage of doctors who have a subscription to NEJM...they are still doctors...are they not?

You talk of mailed surveys then you say the sample (might be) underrepresented because a lot of people don't have home phone lines, but both these examples prove that there's more than one way to conduct a survey, thus invalidating your point in the first place.

I can see your general reluctance to accept polls in general, but specifically, what is your refutation of this one? They polled a group (doctors) asking them a specific question related to their profession...and posted the results.

(Please don't tell me some doctors might not have phones)

way to intentionally mix up my points... they polled a specific subset of Doctors, and telephones aren't relevant. Mailing addresses may be, but we can stop with the red herrings.

And I'm not refuting anything, simply challenging you all to really consider the sample to population inference on this and all statistics. No one here aside from James has even talked about it. Is it possible that a large portion of the Doctors that had the drive to complete the survey because they are already disgruntled about their jobs and want to quit anyway? That tends to be a problem with sociological research: Who finishes the survey and why?

(e.g. People only call the How's My Driving? stickers when pissed off from a bad driver, when the phone line is meant for comments on good and bad driving alike)

Why not poll people in San Fransisco about California and conclude that Californians believe x is right or wrong? Because the subset does not necessarily represent the true population. Better definition of your sample yields more accurate conclusions about your population.

Combine this with the idea that people love to be 'Pollyanna's about choosing their statistics, and drawing conclusions on reality becomes obfuscated.

fdsa, I will certainly grant you that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and that any poll can be skewed. For instance, any Fox poll will be skewed to the right, any msnbc poll will be skewed to the left.

You are certainly correct in saying that people with specific motivations will be more inclined to answer a poll, yet you conclude that (with regards to this poll) only those of one view would bother. How do you know doctors who like the plan didn't have a voice?

Are you telling us is that without the express poll of every doctor in the United States...the poll is useless?

Furthermore, would you be running to the keyboard if the poll had landed on a side that you favour?

You brought up the ridiculous argument that people are unable to respond to polls due to a lack of venues...white elephant if I ever saw one.

Wow.

Let me use an absurd example. There are tall doctors, and there are short doctors. If there was a hypothetical magazine called "Short Doctors Monthly," I should think that a poll asking that readership whether amusement park ride height requirements should be lowered can easily expect the results to come back with a resounding YES!

I am not sure how "The New England Journal of Medicine" came up, but that respected peer reviewed journal of scientific research has NOTHING to do with the poll that Dan Flynn cites, which is from "Investors Business Daily," a self-admitted conservative publication.

You are all very passionate. A bit obstinate. But passionate. It reminds me of the old story of why Socrates thought himself the wisest person in Athens. It wasn't because he was so wise, it was because everyone else was so cocksure of themselves whereas Socrates was open to discovering the truth.

I encourage everyone on here to discover the truth for themselves. As I've mentioned before, go on an information diet. If you read only here, go elsewhere to learn as well. Synthesize information from diverse places.

NR, you hit the nail on the head when you said that a Fox Poll that interviewed people who watch Fox News regularly would be skewed. They are being fed misinformation. Similarly, people with their own anti-health reform agenda will be more likely to watch them to reinforce their opinions. Either way, It doesn't matter what their occupation is.

I don't disrespect the readers of this blog for misreading any of this. I think any passion for politics is amazing. And I love disagreement because it leads to better solutions. This health bill wasn't communicated in clear terms. And statistics can be misleading. So antagonists of the bill had a clear path to turn many against it. But keep in mind, most of their protests are not based on truth, on the actual bill, or the moral cause of giving Americans better health care.

I can promise you this: this health care bill is not a government take-over of health care. That is misinformation meant to frighten you. Anyone who tells you such a thing is ignorant or lying.

Now you know.

On a personal note: I envision an America that takes better care of her own. I don't know what everyone does here for work, but most jobs I've had in my life did not offer health benefits. When I finally purchased my own insurance, I found Blue Shield criminal in how they treated me. And I am one of the lucky ones. I voted for Obama for a singular reason: to bring universal health care to America once and for all. That may not happen right away, but this bill is a great step. I know many of you are scared because you have been sold a frightening story about what health reform means. I implore you make your way through that fog to see how truly profound and great this moment is. You need only look into a history book to see how this fight is nothing new. It happened whenever this nation took a great step forward. Slavery was not right, but abolitionists paved the way. Segregation was not right, but other intrepid souls carried the torch of liberalism. Women eventually got the vote. Don't be on the side of the bad guys when the smoke clears. Because they same people who hate this righteous cause, they didn't like the other ones either. In fact, we had a Civil War as a result. Every great movement was opposed by mediocre minds, going all the way back to the revolution.

Be one of the good guys.

Got to love the lefties - when polls are taken and the results are skewed left because the sampling is left, the poll results are gospel. But take a random sample focusing on a particular group leaving out political association or philosophy and the results are flawed.

Maybe under O care, there will be a cure for the mental disorder that liberalism surely is.

So let me get this right James, you say you're not disrespecting people who disagree with you on this issue and in the same breath compare people who don't agree with you on the issue with racists?

The bill is socialism pure and simple and anywhere you have socialized medicine you have out of control costs,rationing of medical care and an overall decline of medical care for everyone. Anything that purposely makes people more dependent on the government in matters that they should be handling themselves is a bad thing.

But put the content of the legislation aside and look at what is being done and what has been done in an attempt to get this legislation passed. That alone would give any sane person pause. They've attempted numerous times to rush it through without giving anyone a chance to properly read and examine it. They've purposely misrepresented or lied about what the legislation will and will not do.
Finally,despite the fact that a majority of the people do not want this legislation they are ramming it through anyway. What they're doing and the manner in which they are doing it is no different than what some third world dictator would do.

OMG James, you're not sure where the New England Journal of Medicine came into things? Read Dan's post again. He refers specifically to it! Granted, he should have posted a link, but c'mon buddy, don't be so flip. And don't compare yourself to Socrates. Not one person posting here...and most of us are intelligent people...are in his league.

I live in Canada, and wouldn't trade our health care system for yours (and perhaps that disqualifies me from an opinion, but whatever)...however...our system is not the utopia you believe it to be. I still pay for things like drugs, subsidized by MY COMPANY (not the government), and where I pay say $10 for a prescription, my mother, who lives under the same socialized medical system, pays over $100. So it's not the utopia you think it is.

We have long wait times with less access to medical equipment such as MRI's, sometimes to the point that a person dies in the meantime...stories of cutting the line by going to the United States and paying for access abound, and our doctors are burdened with a ridiculous amount of patients. (Our family doctor has several thousand)

The problem with Health care reform in the States is that they are not looking at all options, they're trying to ram through one partisan bill rather than work towards fixing the problems in an incremental manner, and using dubious means to do it (see Louise Slaughter for an example).

To compare Slavery to Health Care is dishonest and frankly cheapens one of the greatest things your nation has ever achieved. To call those who disagree with you "scared" is to insult their intelligence.

I admire that you have a dream of an America with Health care for all. Maybe someday you will. Maybe tomorrow you will. But to call those who want a different solution "the bad guys"...Wow.

I can't say with any real certainty as I don't live under the Canadian or European model, but I would surmise from what I've read and heard that those systems are great if you are young and healthy but Lord help you if you actually need some 30+ medical care.

By my understanding, my 85 year Aunt (now 96) would not have gotten the knee replacement under ANYTHING but the free market system we have here in the United States as her obsolescence under the Canadian or European systems would have been apparent and providing for her the necessary quality of life that enables her to walk, would not have been a priority under those government rationed healthcare systems.

asdf...you are most likely right that your grandmother would not have received a knee replacement. We do have a lot of benefits to our system. My Gran has had cataract operations in both eyes on the government bill...but you must remember that we're a much smaller population, and our taxes are MUCH higher than anything you pay in America...partly due to our healthcare system. The benefit I see to the American system is availability of services. Yes, you have to pay, but yes...you have that option.

Don't lump us in with the Europeans though (especially England). Our system works for us (mostly)...my original point being that it's not the Utopia that it's made out to be. It works, but it has flaws just like any other system.

And speaking of taxes, this gem from (Canada's own) Mark Steyn...

"...Obamacare will result in the creation of at least 16,500 new jobs. Doctors? Nurses? Ha! Dream on, suckers. That’s 16,500 new IRS agents, who’ll be needed to check whether you — yes, you, Mr. and Mrs. Hopendope of 27 Hopeychangey Gardens — are in compliance with the 15 tax increases and dozens of new federal mandates the Deemocrats are about to “deem” into existence. This will be the biggest expansion of the IRS since World War II — and that’s change you can believe in."

NR,

To clarify: I was giving you some props. I mentioned that you made some good points. Because I covered a lot of ground, it seems like I was making an unfair connection between opponents of this health reform bill and opponents of other liberal causes. I apologize if that is what came across.

I was trying to talk about the abstract forces behind ideologies. We can't discount how much our opinions are shaped by the media we consume, the places and families we come from, etc... I would say the same thing to a Keith Olberman zealot.

That is why I liked Dan's "Intellectual Morons" so much. I believe the thesis behind that book is a sound one: smart people can get hijacked by ideology.

Do I disagree with you? Yes, but I respect your right to your point of view... if it is based on facts. If not, you are just part of the angry mob. I respect your political passion. Why would I sit down and write a response if I didn't think it worthwhile? In fact, I'm trying a different tactic, and appealing to your intelligence. That is why I singled you out. You were writing interesting things.

I am not saying that I was Socrates in my example, but telling the story to illustrate that a rigid loyalty to any ideology can block out objective truth. Isn't this what happened to Ayn Rand and her followers?

I am not demeaning those who disagree with me by directly comparing them to slave owners, but showing that in historical context, the same arguments come up and often the conservative view rejects things that history reveals to be not only good ideas, but righteous ones.

We were once locked in a partisan battle like this, and it tore apart our union. Did you know that the senate rules forbid the debate of slavery for the first seventy years of our republic? Couldn't even bring it up.

If you choose to associate the two, you can, but those were different people back then, with different problems, and there is not a direct connection between them and you.

But for one virtue: a trumping of ideology over pragmatism. Take away the moral problem of slavery and you still have a festering wound in the United States that would need to be repaired.

Nevertheless, when Southern Republicans go to the floor and talk about the "great war of Yankee aggression" in 2010, it gives one pause. A cursory glance at the Tea Party protestors can give one pause. This is not America, but a very uninformed group of old white people who are being led like lemmings to vote against their own interests.

The problem is mute, because even the most red red-states have children. And these children surely will not grow up to carry the torch of Confederate values.

Republicans are dying as a demographic. Hopefully in their place will come a conservative group that doesn't reject thought and morality. How did conservatism go from Buckley to Palin? From the party of values to the party of anarchy, obstructionism and medievalism. And yes, racism.

Conservatism has its place in protecting a Republic, but a this critical juncture in history when America is declining on the world stage. We need innovation, not just more of the same hateful rhetoric and evangelical superiority. Conservatism is, by definition, a resistance. A clinging to what is... a fear of change... The problem is willful denial. It will be the death of our nation. No force outside our country is as dangerous as these unAmerican idiots who are throwing bricks into the windows of our representatives at this very moment.

If you truly fancy yourself a fiscal conservative, then I ask you to reconcile your views with history. Are you aware of George Bush's effect on our national debt? Let me ask you again. Are you aware of his role in our current crisis?

Are you against entitlement programs in general? The concept of social safety nets? Perhaps somewhere in your heated words there is a pragmatic argument, but so much is lost in the misrepresentation of truth, the demonization of Obama, and the constant heralding that Armageddon is here.

What you should worry about is only whether you are telling the truth, and you can't figure that out if you only keep company with one side. Especially if that side is the one exploiting decency for self-interest.

Conservatives: Against Science! What else can you be against?
So, so sad.

My comment was an invitation to experience this debate on all sides. NR, I don't know if you are from the South, if you are older, or if you in any other way represent a statistical snapshot of the people who fall for all these right wing lies, but there is another way.

Americans are moving on, moving forward, and protecting the Republic. Hating your president -- a man who is vastly more intelligent than everyone you know -- is nothing more than dumb indignation. Maybe it gives you a bit of pride as you drive to work listening to Rush. Maybe the anger defines you. It must boil your blood that a minority is in the white house with all those socialist plans!

NR, you are just a consumer to those guys. You make them rich. In the end your vitriol only costs you and your children as you fight progress.

You say you have no fear? By that do you mean you have only hate? You use the words "ram through the bill." Did you know that Republicans rammed through the tax cuts through reconciliation? DId you know that those tax cuts were the most dangerous policies moves ever made by a modern president, almost singlehandedly tripling our debt?

You say the health reform bill is "socialism." A bill that expands the privatization of insurance companies. NR, what are your qualifications for dismissing this health bill as "socialism?" I am dead serious. Are you an expert on health policy? If you are going to proudly announce your ignorance, at least give me some context.

NR, do you even know what socialism is?

James, Doctor's leaving their Profession because of increased workload and lower pay is just common sense!

Also, check this out...

http://www.mommd.com/beingadoctor.shtml

"One Family Practice physician recently complained that her net take-home pay after all expenses (including malpractice and student loans) is approximately $37,000 per year."

I can attest that this is true. My Father was a Doctor and a frequent, angry complaint I heard growing up was "they're raising the malpractive premiums again!"