72.5% of physicians favor public health insurance

[Lazar]

From the NEJM - doctors from all sectors and regions overwhelmingly support either a public option or a fully public system. Bear in mind the fact that 55% of Americans support the public option as well. For some state numbers, a recent Research 2000 poll (contracted by a left-wing site, but a reputable enough polling agency) even found 55% support for it in Arkansas, compared with a 46% plurality in Kentucky and a 39% minority in Nebraska.

[Tsukiyumi]

Well, there you go.

[sunnyside]

Also, less than 10% support public option only. Less than half the support for private only.

Which suggest that actual support depends on details. The study pitched the public option as an expanded medicare, which seems reasonable as doctors should understand the details of medicare, so their answers should be consistant with how they feel.

But medicare isn't what lots of people think of when they say "public option", for example sometimes substantial out of pocket costs and premiums.

[Lazar]

Also, less than 10% support public option only.

Which, in the context of the poll, would be single-payer.

...or a public option only, eliminating private insurance and covering everyone through a single public plan like Medicare.

But medicare isn't what lots of people think of when they say "public option", for example sometimes substantial out of pocket costs and premiums.

Well I don't think people are under some illusion that the public option would have no copays and premiums - at least I hope not.

[sunnyside]

Well I don't think people are under some illusion that the public option would have no copays and premiums - at least I hope not.

I could be wrong, but I think tiny or nonexistant premiums and copays are what many people think of with the public option. On this board that seems to be how Monroe and Tsu think of it.

However if you haven't been putting into the system for 40 years even basic medicare costs over $200 a month I believe. And even if you have been putting in that long there are large gaps in the covereage that cost hundreds more per month if you want them filled (for example basic medicare won't cover a physical therapist). And I think even if you spring for the extra there are an array of limits. For example I believe only the first 20 days in a hospital are fully covered, after that you're paying a solid chunk of the room and board, and after 100 days you're SOL.

Granted younger people tend to have fewer and smaller medical bills, so a medicare like public option wouldn't have to cost hundreds per month, but maybe $100 month.

[Aaron]

Well I don't think people are under some illusion that the public option would have no copays and premiums - at least I hope not.

If it doesn't then it's like replacing a shit sandwich with a processed shit sandwich. You could still go broke and unless there is a major overhaul of the drug system, guys like Tsu will probably still be unable to afford meds.

[Mikey]

No (or nominal) premiums, I could live with - having a zero co-pay would be like signing the public option's own death warrant at the same time it's born.

[Tsukiyumi]

Hey, I'm not even asking for free health care; just something I can afford.

[Nickswitz]

Hey, I'm not even asking for free health care; just something I can afford.

That's something a lot of people don't seem to understand, Obama is not trying to make it free, he's trying to make it so people can be healthy and eat at the same time...

[Tsukiyumi]

...Obama is not trying to make it free, he's trying to make it so people can be healthy and eat at the same time...

That would be fine with me.

[Nickswitz]

...Obama is not trying to make it free, he's trying to make it so people can be healthy and eat at the same time...

That would be fine with me.

Haha, but some people don't seem to understand that that's what he's doing.... Some people just can't understand what people say...

[sunnyside]

Hey, I'm not even asking for free health care; just something I can afford.

Hurm. I'm failing to come up with a better way to ask this. But, basically, given some of your past posts (where you indicated $100 a month, which you can get health insurance for now, was way to much), is there a difference between the two?

I mean once health insurance costs a fiver a month we might as well save on the postage and just make it free.

[Tsukiyumi]

I could do $20-25 for bare-bones coverage. $100 a month would mean I'd have to choose between gas, bills, or food to cut, probably more than one.

[Captain Seafort]

I mean once health insurance costs a fiver a month we might as well save on the postage and just make it free.

Health care will never be free - by definition. You have to pay for the doctors, the drugs, the equipment, etc. What you can do is make it free at the point of delivery, as the NHS does, which I very much doubt can be done with US levels of taxation. As a comparison the top level of income tax over here is 50%, and that is historically very low, while IIRC the top rate of tax in the US is 25%.

[Lazar]

The top income tax rate in the US used to be over 90%, from the 1930s all the way to the 1960s, but it's been lowered so much that they now find 35% (the current maximum rate) to be a huge imposition.