The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 54 percent of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care bill, while 39 percent are at least somewhat opposed. This includes 43 percent who Strongly Favor repeal and 28 percent who are Strongly Opposed to it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 23-24, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.
CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody "This poll suggests a simple lesson: One political party cannot implement its ideas exclusively and unilaterally in a country as diverse and deeply divided as the United States.This week during a meeting at the U.S. Capitol, I asked a leading Republican physician Member of Congress what the GOP might do on health care reform after the Supreme Court ruled on the health care law. The physician's response included the following:
- Repeal Obamacare.
- Listen to and involve Democrats.
- Take a measured, step-by-step approach.
- Focus on achieving greater affordability and wider coverage.
- Provide more consumer choice, less bureaucracy and more decision-making by physicians.
- Ensure conscience protections for health care professionals.
- Enact Texas-style tort reform to curb out-of-control malpractice litigation.
- Reform Medicare and keep it from collapsing with means testing, ensuring care for the poor while giving greater responsibility to individuals who have the means to pay.
- Emphasize health savings accounts, reasonable deductibles and co-payments as a way to bend the cost curve.
- Return to a market-driven approach to health care and provide transparency of pricing on medical procedures so consumers can make informed decisions on their care.
- Provide for patients with pre-existing conditions.
- Enact tax reform, including lower tax rates, focused deductions and tax parity so that individuals can claim the same tax benefits for health care costs as do businesses.
- Increase competition by enabling mobility of health insurance plans--allowing patients to transport their plans with them regardless of changes in employers.
CMDA's internal polling suggests that most of our members favor an approach to health care that allocates decision-making power not to the federal government but to physicians and patients, with individual care decisions best made in the examination room rather than in the back rooms of Congress or in the maze of Washington bureaucracy. After the public backlash and lessons of the past two years, the prospects for Congress enacting such an approach appear more likely than ever.
I believe that our pre-ACA health care system was badly broken. The US spends twice as much per capita as Australia, UK, or Japan, has has a higher infant mortality rate than any of the three, and a shorter life expectancy.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what is meant by a "return to a market-driven approach to health care" in the Republican physician member of Congress's comments noted in this article. If it means returning to what we had in 2007, I believe that would be a terrible mistake. If it means returning to what we had before Medicare and Medicaid, I think the public opposition would far exceed what polling is showing with regard to the Affordable Care Act.
I strongly affirm the Congressperson's proposal to "Listen to and involve Democrats". I believe both parties have contributed to the tremendous political divide which polarizes our country today. In an attempt to balance the strongly partisan position of CMDA (of which I'm a member), I note the following statements made by Republicans in the last years (I believe I am citing accurately the meaning of the statements, though I will not invest the time to find the exact quotes): (1) The most important goal of the next years is to ensure that Obama is not re-elected. (I would have preferred a stated goal of trying to govern well for all the people.) (2) The Affordable Care Act makes provision for Death Panels. (It seemed reasonable to me to do research to find out what helps health most at a reasonable cost. We can't afford all the health care available. ) (3) People don't want the Affordable Care Act. (My perception is that at least some people may not like the Affordable Care Act because of widely-broadcast misleading and inflammatory statements made by Republicans).
I do not think the ACA is perfect. I don't think it is sustainable to pay all healthcare costs without lifetime limits on reimbursed medical expenses, for instance. I am concerned about what I see as an erosion of protections of conscience for health care workers during the Obama administration. And there are very large parts of the ACA about which I am ignorant.
But to dismiss the ACA because it is "Socialist" is to avoid thoughtful discussion. What are the goals of the CMDA with regard to the US Healthcare System? To maintain physician income and prestige? To serve a greater percentage of the US population well? To minimize increasing national debt for our children and grandchildren? Regardless of the goals, I believe that what is needed is an enunciation of the goals, then careful, humble advocacy for things which we believe will move us toward those goals. What parts of the ACA are good? What parts of the old system were good? Which parts of both are bad? Why? Why is the non-socialist US health system not producing the kinds of health results that "socialist" health care systems in other western developed countries are producing? What specific laws do we propose instead of the laws we oppose? Name-calling will not advance our cause.
I call on the CMDA to begin to address these issues in a less partisan manner. I believe that our organization's public statements in recent years have fairly consistently vilified the ideas of one group of people whose membership includes smart, well-intentioned Christians as well as unrepentant sinners, and has fairly consistently honored the ideas of another group of people which includes unrepentant sinners as well as smart, well-intentioned Christians. We are all poorer as a result.
Thanks for reading these thoughts.
Glen Heise, MD
I agree with Dr. Heise wholeheartedly. There are many parts to the ACA which are very good and are in line with what I believe Jesus would himself support. The political polarization I have seen in CMDA may be leaving many progressive Christian physicians feeling a bit marginalized. I too would appreciate a more balanced look at the issues respectful of the broader views of the CMDA membership
ReplyDeleteDavid Drozek, D.O.
I stand strongly with David and Glen's comments above. The "plans" by the physician congressman "sound good if you say them real fast" but lack a clear strategy to accomplish them. And if these things are so desireable - why has it taken the ACA to get people to start considering them. President Obama himself has recognized that the ACA is not perfect, but at least it challenges us to improve our broken system. We, as Christians, ought to be in the forefront of applauding the portions of this law that lift up the disadvantaged and marginalized members of our society, and all together we ought to be looking for ways to modify any and all aspects of the law that could be improved - rather than "knee jerking" to repeal. If "we" (inclusive) had been doing the right thing all along there would not even need to be a debate about these issues. While many (hopefully most) physicians practice ethically, there are far too many examples of health care providers and suppliers being driven by greed, and simply to say that we should leave all health care decisions up to folks like this in their exam rooms with unprotected patients is naive.
DeleteAlthough I am a lifetime member of CMDA, and have served on the Board of Trustees in the past, I have been very disappointed in the direction the organization has gone on this and other issues in recent years. I consider myself to be a committed Christian physician, fiscally conservative and socially liberal (seems like a position Jesus would condone), but am uncomfortable with the polarizing positions that CMDA seems to gravitate towards. I,too, would appreciate a more balanced look at the issues respectful of the broader views of the CMDA membership.
I second the thoughts in Dr. Heise, Dr. Drozek, and Dr. Westfall's comments , in their entirety.
DeleteEspecially the remarks on CMDA.
As "the" Christian voice for healthcare in the US, I would have hoped "we" would have played a more proactive role in trying to care for "the least of these". If "we" had (we = CMDA + the Church), there would be no need for the ACA.
As a CHRISTIAN and future physician with intentions to work in a low-income, urban community, I would have hoped that CMDA wouldn't be yet another product of a Capitalist society, trying to shove their own beliefs down my throat. Thankfully, there are organizations like CCHF and John Perkin's foundation that are getting this whole Christian-healthcare thing SPOT-ON.
And just for the record, after studying the ACA for a few months at the University of Michigan, I firmly support it, despite its apparent "shortcomings".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, I'm a third year medical student. I joined CMDA last year and have been receiving CMDA's "the point" emails which included this article.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the comments on this site because it made my picture of the CMDA body as more balanced. Honestly, when I simply read the email/this post, I was confused about who was sending me this email. Is it the Christian general population, CMDA, or the GOP? It's really confusing and complicated as a Christian student to sort through all these politics, positions, and tribal warfare. So that is why I need to read these articles and learn what is being said out there. But this article/email (and past ones) seems so one-sided that it really pressures me to stop reading (maybe ignore "the point" altogether). How can this be useful for me if it only presents one side? (It only helps if I know my position and only intend on reading things that keep me on my position.)
I don't need something to remind me "only" of differences. I want something that is balanced, that tells me that there are things that Christians can agree on, that (as the above comments say) there are things in the ACA that Christians want too.
I don't want to threaten the CMDA or CMA or any group, but I want to tell the truth when I say that there's something in these emails, articles, and politics that is making it harder and harder to convince myself that Jesus is here in medicine. I want to display to my classmates that Christ heals but looking at these older (sorry, no offense) Christians makes me so discouraged.
I agree with much that has been written so far. Unfortunately, this comments section may not be read by anyone except those few who take the time to write a response. I hope that someone from CMDA's leadership will take the time to read these comments and issue some sort of reply.
ReplyDeleteI myself have been a member since medical school in 2001. CMDA was a source of support and encouragement as I sought to become a faithful, compassionate and bold Christian doctor. And before I write anything critical, I must say that there are still many parts of its ministry that continue to be that for myself and many others. In this age of anonymous internet postings I want to avoid rash generalizations and unnecessary harshness.
But having said that (and again I painfully write this as a saddened Christian brother) that this particular aspect of CMDA- which also happens to be a very public dimension of its ministry- I believe has very seriously missed the mark in representing Christian/Biblical values.
As many of you have already written, the public statement issued by Dr. Stevens: "While court battles will continue over other aspects of the Affordable Care Act not addressed in today's decision, we have learned that we cannot simply rest in the hope that our courts will uphold Constitutional principles. We call on Congress to turn back this law's assault on our freedoms and restore American values and Constitutional principles in health care. Repeal this overreaching law and enact bipartisan, targeted health care reforms." reads with such partisan (read: Republican) bent that I must distance myself from it as a Believer and member. This statement does not speak for me. I am a US citizen, I am NOT a democrat (I am registered independent)- I believe we as Believers have an obligation to participate in our government and voice our opinions. But I do not think that CMDA as an organization should use it's visibility to take political sides and further polarize this discussion. I am currently working as a tentmaker overseas, and Christianity's deep involvement in US politics certainly hurts, not helps, the Church's witness worldwide. Even as I am home on leave, I constantly encounter the (I believe harmful) notion that Christianity=Republican. That we Christians are known more for our anti-gay, anti-abortion political stands than for our compassion, our service to the poor, our inclusive communities full of grace.
Just as any author of a scientific article must divulge any potential conflicts of interest, I do call upon the leadership of CMDA and Dr. Stevens to publicly discuss any possible conflicts of interest include political affiliations. I ask that CMDA please stop using it's power and influence to promote ANY parties political agenda. In areas where there may not be a clear Biblical stance to issue more balanced and neutral statements.
Again, I write all these things as a challenge and encouragement. It saddens me deeply to have to write these words, CMDA has had a large influence on my decision to go overseas and serve our Lord. Again, in many other areas, it continues to do so. But these public statements, in my humble opinion, are harming, rather than advancing the Kingdom of God.
T. Yuen, MD
Amen, and Amen!
ReplyDelete