Doctors Support Universal Healthcare

Where did I ever say it was a bad poll?
The article just doesn't present us with enough data to determine that all physicians would give us the same percentage as those taken from 2000 tagged.

However, it can be a 'good' poll and still be misrepresented, or it can be a 'good poll' and be properly represented. Although the link took me to an article which reported on published data elsewhere... it did not take me to that article: I looked for it in the AIM and subscription is required to do a search. Therefore we are not only depending on a report of a report, we have no idea what the original report might tell us... nor the possible bias of interpretation or understanding in presenting the report to the general public.

As it stands, it no doubt is satisfactory to your belief as you will defend it without measure. If it were a poll presenting something more to my agreement.... I might possibly place it before you and use it as a tool.... However, in either case, for either of us to insist on the accuracy of any poll and its generalisation, unless we are in a position to know for a fact that this is true, is preposterous nonsense.

The poll merely tells us the response of 2000 physicians regarding one issue. It tells us absolutely nothing about how many refused to respond, what were the questions, in what order were they given, who prepared the poll and what were their qualifications for proving both the legitimacy and the validity of each question, in what format was the questions presented, ...... and, if a telephone poll were used, to what degree was the record of the poll takers free of mistakes in recording the response or perhaps making a judgement for a pollee who might have been hedging on uncertainty.

Polls cost money, and there is a purpose of intent behind each one: Whether this is hidden from the responders we don't know and does not mean the ones conducting it don't know who paid their contract and have no interest in which way their bread is buttered. There are so many factors to consider... that when we use polled statistics to make a point... we have a right to expect our point will be contested by some, whether they agree or not... and rightly so IF that is the only tool or arguement we present in making our point.

I'm not saying you can't use that poll to make a point: I am saying that for either of us to do so and then jump another because they don't trust polls.... when there is plenty of reason and data to question, is denying the legitamacy to question, or, frankly, revealing our own ignorance.

 

The differences have been explained. I'm sorry you don't understand. :BangHead:

 

The Wikipedia article you referenced addresses the conditions where non-responder bias is an issue, if the characteristics of non-responders are different from the characteristics of responders in a manner that affects the results.

I appreciate your honest reflection that your questioning of this poll is because of the results and not the methodology. It always helps to recognize one's own biases which is the first step in developing critical thinking skills that are fair in judgement.

Here you are incorrect. The poll was a surprise to me since I would have expected the results to be the opposite. While I support universal health care, my bias in this case is that I believe that physicians and the AMA are the primary blockers to universal health care in the U.S. If someone were able to show that the results were biased, that would be more in line with my personal views on the opinions of physicians in the U.S.

Here is the report done in 2003 by the same folks which they repeated in 2008 that lead to the new results. The 2008 data is too new to be freely available online but the 2003 one is available.

Annals of Internal Medicine - Support for National Health Insurance among U.S. Physicians: A National Survey

 

The article includes an image of the actual survey questions.

 

The article did not just address the non-responder issue. However, as thorough as Wiki is, it is not a course in the disigns and flaws of composing a survey and performing a poll. There are people who get degrees in this stuff and most of them know to be skeptical... except when its part of their job to be supportive. Even the meaning of words makes a difference: One person hears 'universal' and thinks immediately of the increasing division between those who have insurance and those who don't. Another hears 'insurance' and doesn't read or register 'government' in the same line. Some might even question if there is much difference between the insurance plans offered now and a universal plan offered by the government.... The government has had their paws all over the health insurance and HMO plans. In other words we are getting a generalized answer but not a definitive answer which might totally differ from consensus of what is meant if the question(s) were broken down to specifics of provision and delivery.

Your statement serves the point I'm trying to make.... What one says and what another hears them say can be intirely different. I have not presented any such bias, as you say, because of the results. I have not contested the results. The methodology is unknown to me so for me to assume it is correct makes a .....well you know what they say about "assume"? I do question any position which presents the question and the response and then summarizes that it represents all people belonging to a group but gives us no further information regarding the poll such as how the sample was determined, a comparative sample against which responses were compared....etc. etc. etc.

Frankly I'm tired of tossing my strengths against an unrelenting wall of opposition.

In the end we all believe what we want to believe.

I choose to refuse to draw conclusions based upon limited statistical data.

I refused to accept the conclusions of others based upon their limited presentation of statistics. They have their agenda to sell copy or maybe change law.

It is sufficient for the masses who choose to follow popular opinion.... but popularity is of no consequence to me. Opinion polls are just that... and when presented to people who are accustom to thinking... will change from time to time as they continue to formulate, each for his self, the concepts presented in a poll, and review and refine their choice or change it. Case in point, the previous poll was not that far removed from the current one presented... but the statistics differed and we are accepting both polls are reliable. The question is not do people change their position from time to time... We know they do. The question is Is this significant enough for us to change our position .... or just incentive for us to dig deeper regarding where we stand? Opinions are mercurial..... and an unstable man.... or a man who is driven by the influences of others is not stable in his ways. This does not negate change, but it does negate a premature acceptance before questioning and proving to ourselves 'what is true'.

 

I agree. I was responding to your comments because you brought it up again after it was already addressed by the wiki-article you referenced in addition to my statements. I am aware of the other issues from the wiki article which are potential errors of studies in general. If you have a problem with polls and surveys in general, then it would make sense for you not to cite polls of any kind, whether you agree or disagree with their results. If you have a problem with this poll in particular, please illustrate what the problem is with their methodology. That should be easy since we have the 2003 study which shows the methodology likely used in the 2008 study done by the same people for the purpose of comparison over time.

Didn't you contest the results when you said "surveys of this kind are useless because ..."

And then you said if the poll presented something that agrees with your view, you might be more likely to present it and use it as a tool, presumably to defend your view. So you are saying it wouldn't have been useless if it presented something that agrees with your view. Have I misunderstood you?

I thought that was a recognition that your challenge of this poll is based on results that conflicted with your bias. I would have increased my respect for you if you recognized this. There is nothing wrong with having biases and recognizing them. It helps us to be fair in our analysis.

I have quoted the questions used and they are very clear that universal means federally funded health care for everyone.

The study is a repeat of the 2003 one and the methodology has been made available for your critique.

I believe there are good studies and bad studies. Good studies still have errors and problems but do their best to minimize them with good methodology while bad studies make little or no such attempt. Through critical analysis of a study's methodology, we can make judgements about its value. Is that different to what you believe?

I don't believe the results say anything about telling anyone to change their position or to dig deeper into their stance. All it is telling us is what the physicians polled believe about universal government funded health care which is an approximation of what physicians in the U.S. in general believe about it.

For sure, we should always question what we read, which is what I have been doing throughout this thread. Questioning why some challenge this poll and waiting for someone to present a valid critique. I am willing to consider any valid critiques to the methodology of the poll and have suggested some ways to do this.

 

Gold Dragon,
I cited Wiki and still you came back slamming my input.

Can't you see that all this is is a difference of viewpoint. I seldom cite polls. I don't use polls to influence my stand on things. I try to search for deeper things than people's opinions. People's opinion polls only tell me where perhaps a majority stands one moment in time at the time the poll was taken.
Obviously it means more to you than it does to me.
You may be my sister in Christ but I cannot follow your example in this matter.

Can you get it. It's a difference of viewpoint and all you and I are doing is going in circles: A senseless power struggle.... 'Cept I already realize there's no changing of your mind.

If you want the last word... then go ahead and post.

I'm done!

 

Thread closing warning. This thread will be closed no sooner than 2:15 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

LE

 

Closed. LE