I guess I'll regard you as objective when you breezily brush off the comments of someone on "your side" who says they know "a doctor" who thinks this is a good plan - or perhaps when you shrug off someone using HuffPo as "backup" the same way you react when someone cites Breitbart.com
700 doctors is plenty more than one. And, they're all in practice - not politicians.
Conrad - I'm not objective!
But I also don't quote The Huffington Post and pretend its factual and the final word!
When I was researching how many members the AMA had, I found an article criticizing them for only representing between 15-20% of active practicing physicians. So - if a group that large is too small - what does that say about a survey of 700?
Sorry, but mysnarky comment was an attempt to encourage us to ask ourselves if our decisions are based on political commentary, or the facts behind political commentary. My opinion is that you are above others in understanding tolerance in discussions. But while I might be wrong, I see political bias in the comment I referenced above. Seriously, is it unbiased to argue that we should accept the health care plan simply because "not everyone will be happy with whatever they come up with", without first identifying the source of the political group that wrote the health care law, and identifying whether it was formulated based on data-driven research? Or did it have a political agenda? I'd argue that only a person who chooses to side with the political leanings of the creators of the document would make such claims without trying to understand the political environment that drove the legislation and excluded input from the non-political practicioners of the health care community. I don't mean it to sound snarky. The official record from the speaker of the house was that we had to hurry up and pass it, so we could find out what is in it, and this was in reference to a law that was written by a second party political action group.
If someone said, "I read the law and agree with it", or "I read white papers where a uniform spectrum of subject matter experts were polled and agreed with it", and followed it with, "yeah, we should support it because no law will please everyone", then I think that this would be a non-political opinion. Otherwise, we're all bringing politics into it when we point the finger at our adversary in a debate.
As Americans, when we are forming an opinion on a matter that affects our children's future, we often confuse political commentary with the actual news, and both politically entrenched idealists tend to get their "news" from commentary that is tilted one way or another. My opinion is very biased against arguments that are grounded in politics rather than data-driven decisions.
I think these types of debates are generally interesting - a way to stretch my mind a bit. But I think most of us are full of $hit. So it disappointed me just a bit that your otherwise interesting commentary included just a dash too much of the normal politically charged BS.
You repeating what ive heard so many times before - that the law was passed without being read or understood - causes me to pause and think.
Putting down HuffPo makes me quickly dismiss you as "one of them."
I think what I posted above regarding the AMA v. a survey of 700 is something that should give a rational person reason to pause and think.
The AMA has over 200,000 members - who are licensed physicians (or students.)
Read it again.
It's not the AMA.
>>My wife is a member of the Doctor Patient Medical Association Foundation, and they recently completed a survey of nearly 700 physicians across the country. They were almost unanimous that this program puts us on the wrong track.<<
My response was to his criticism that the only "medical" org supporting the bill was the AMA.
He pointed out that the AMA is a political organization.
I understand. But it is a political org representing licensed healthcare professionals.
Some apparently argue that it is too small of a group and doesn't represent a large enough population. But even so, it is the largest political group representing healthcare professionals and has a member base which is much larger than the 700 sampled in the poll cited by Halien.
I may not be objective - but I firmly believe what I've written above is logical and consistent.
And at no point did I insult anyone, make sweeping grand statements about either political party, or quote the Huffington Post.
My response was to his criticism that the only "medical" org supporting the bill was the AMA.
He pointed out that the AMA is a political organization.
I understand. But it is a political org representing licensed healthcare professionals.
Some apparently argue that it is too small of a group and doesn't represent a large enough population. But even so, it is the largest political group representing healthcare professionals and has a member base which is much larger than the 700 sampled in the poll cited by Halien.
I may not be objective - but I firmly believe what I've written above is logical and consistent.
And at no point did I insult anyone, make sweeping grand statements about either political party, or quote the Huffington Post.
And yet I also recognize that Obamacare may fail miserably.
"Well, on the first half of the record, you're just pissed off. The first cut, 'We Take Care of Our Own,' is where I set out the questions that I'm going to try to answer. The song's chorus is posed as a challenge and a question. Do we take care of our own? What happened to that social contract?"
- Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stone, March 2012
I think these types of debates are generally interesting - a way to stretch my mind a bit. But I think most of us are full of $hit. So it disappointed me just a bit that your otherwise interesting commentary included just a dash too much of the normal politically charged BS.
You repeating what ive heard so many times before - that the law was passed without being read or understood - causes me to pause and think.
Putting down HuffPo makes me quickly dismiss you as "one of them."
I think what I posted above regarding the AMA v. a survey of 700 is something that should give a rational person reason to pause and think.
So, it's politically charged BS if it disagrees with your political view, but reasonable debate if it agrees? Yet you don't see that you are using the same tactics that you accuse the others of? Because it sounds like a talking point you heard, it is not rational debate?
Sure, the AMA can take a stand on legislation. So can the AARP. As long as they are willing to make claims on behalf of their organization without consulting the members of their oranization, they could emphatically declare that the moon is falling, but that in no way correlates to the view of its members, because they were not consulted. Problem is, if this stand does not reflect a survey of its members, then the stand has no merit in a rational, fact-based debate concerning the views of doctors, unless one is using it as a tool in a form of debate that has its foundation in rhetoric. Yet you say that others making claims that do not represent conventionally accepted facts makes their argument "political". Suggesting that it conveys the stance of the physicians within the AMA is a political ploy used by left leaning advocates. Non-partisan thinkers would seek input of the members within the AMA, and not a small body of clerical appointees.
A typical problem solving approach to fixing a problem like health care follows a DMAIC process. Define the problem. Measure, Analyze, Improve and Confirm. This legislation attempted a partial Define stage, jumped to Improve and called it done. The entire business world, and health care world found the whole process laughably childish. It garnered the same results as if we had just asked a group of hollywood actors to fix health care. To hear Gingrich and Al Gore talk about the need to understand and use "these new problem -solving methodologies", when the rest of the world has been using processes like this to innovate for centuries, makes it hard to believe that they weren't just rolling dice with our children's future.
On my smartphone - hard to answer/organize quotes as I would like.
The HuffPo comment was a basic political jab on your part. I don't believe anyone here has tried using Huff as a viable information source on this thread.
If I suddenly start throwing out Limbaugh and Fox News jabs when no one is quoting them it likely means I am no longer really paying attention.
Do you truly believe that the AMA is going against the best interests of its own members? And if so - why? Seems very illogical.
The poll you cited did not say it was a sample of 700 AMA members - it was taken by members of a different professional organization. It does not mean the poll is invalid - but I question how you can apply these results to the AMA.
It is unfortunate that our political process doesn't mirror the Six Sigma model. It's messy and it's ugly and it often doesn't make sense.
But again I would question - do you suggest our leaders do nothing because the political process is messy and ugly and often doesn't make sense?
Again - aside from the Huff crap - I feel like these are reasonable questions.
80Likes
