Skip to main content

Comment rescues, bad math, and ridiculous factoids of the health care debate

Because people who have an agenda rarely bother to check their facts, and people who agree with their agenda rarely bother to challenge them, things like this comment on the American Medical Association versus Physicians for National Healthcare pass into history as fact-free talking points:

The majority of doctors who used to be members of the AMA, have left that group and joined Physicans for National Health Care. PNHP.org. These doctors are all for single payer health care!


Not that this commenter will every reaLIZe it, but the statistics say otherwise.

The AMA has not quite 245,000 members, of whom about 135,000 are actually practicing physicians (the rest are retired, medical students, or other medical personnel). This means the AMA represents something like 15% of the 900,000 practicing physicians in the United States today.

Physicians for a National Health Program [the actual name of the group] claims 14,000 members. Again, not all are doctors; many are retired, medical students or allied health professionals.

Assuming that 55% of the members of PNHP [the same percentage as the AMA] are practicing physicians, this would mean that PNHP represents the views of not quite 1% of the 900,000 practicing physicians in the United States today.

For either organization to claim to speak for the entire medical profession is, therefore, dishonest, but for anyone to suggest that PHNP represents the voice of American physicians borders on delusional.

Still, it won't matter, because the relationship of talking points to truth is no longer really very important, is it?

Comments

Anonymous said…
God, I'm so glad you pointed this out. The credibility of branding with an association is so lost these days on most people. Show me membership. I will give their marketeers credit though. They have managed to hoodwink the public into thinking the AMA, ADA, ANA, NEA, and every other "profession" with a seal can be likened to a "Good Housekeeping" seal. Great strategy. But lousy policy and politics for the most part. Just ask your best doctors, greatest teachers, and most competent dentists.
Anonymous said…
are you using a calculator???

that's cheating!!!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...