As Physicians’ Jobs Change, So Do Their Politics

As Physicians’ Jobs Change, So Do Their Politics

AUGUSTA, Me. — With Republicans in complete control of Maine’s state government for the first time since 1962, State Senator Lois A. Snowe-Mello offered a bill in February to limit doctors’ liability that she was sure the powerful doctors’ lobby would cheer. Instead, it asked her to shelve the measure.

“It was like a slap in the face,” said Ms. Snowe-Mello, who describes herself as a conservative Republican. “The doctors in this state are increasingly going left.”

Doctors were once overwhelmingly male and usually owned their own practices. They generally favored lower taxes and regularly fought lawyers to restrict patient lawsuits. Ronald Reagan came to national political prominence in part by railing against “socialized medicine” on doctors’ behalf.

But doctors are changing. They are abandoning their own practices and taking salaried jobs in hospitals, particularly in the North, but increasingly in the South as well. Half of all younger doctors are women, and that share is likely to grow.

There are no national surveys that track doctors’ political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening from Maine as well as South Dakota, Arizona and Oregon, according to doctors’ advocates in those and other states.

That change could have a profound effect on the nation’s health care debate. Indeed, after opposing almost every major health overhaul proposal for nearly a century, the American Medical Association supported President Obama’s legislation last year because the new law would provide health insurance to the vast majority of the nation’s uninsured, improve competition and choice in insurance, and promote prevention and wellness, the group said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/healt ... 0docs.html

The farther to the right the GOP moves, the more they lose the middle and the constituencies they used to count on.

I kinda see it a bit differently LJ. The more reliant upon government money the physicians become, the more they support the party of big government. The more self reliant the physician is, the more likely they are to support the party of the republic.

Not really all that surprising when you think about it.

I don't know that I do, PS. I think it may be the exposure they get to folks that are in a hospital. A lot of the folks don't have health care.

My $.02

PrintSmith wrote: I kinda see it a bit differently LJ. The more reliant upon government money the physicians become, the more they support the party of big government. The more self reliant the physician is, the more likely they are to support the party of the republic.

Not really all that surprising when you think about it.

So, let me see if I understand you... Anyone who CHOOSES to work FOR a business rather than start their own is somehow a "supporter of big government"? So, ALL 300 MILLION of U.S. citizens should be in business for themselves and no one should work for anyone else? Got it... You are more delusional than I thought.

My GP used to own an office, but now Exempla bought his location. It just becomes harder every year to run your own small business.

LadyJazzer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I kinda see it a bit differently LJ. The more reliant upon government money the physicians become, the more they support the party of big government. The more self reliant the physician is, the more likely they are to support the party of the republic.

Not really all that surprising when you think about it.

So, let me see if I understand you... Anyone who CHOOSES to work FOR a business rather than start their own is somehow a "supporter of big government"? So, ALL 300 MILLION of U.S. citizens should be in business for themselves and no one should work for anyone else? Got it... You are more delusional than I thought.

Wow, you really stretched that one out to the idiot extreme.

LadyJazzer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I kinda see it a bit differently LJ. The more reliant upon government money the physicians become, the more they support the party of big government. The more self reliant the physician is, the more likely they are to support the party of the republic.

Not really all that surprising when you think about it.

So, let me see if I understand you... Anyone who CHOOSES to work FOR a business rather than start their own is somehow a "supporter of big government"? So, ALL 300 MILLION of U.S. citizens should be in business for themselves and no one should work for anyone else? Got it... You are more delusional than I thought.

Wow, talk about your progressive exaggeration, you folks really need a new playbook. The one you are using is so tired and worn out that it can no longer be used to intentionally distort what was said into something that was not. What I was commenting on was one specific group of people employed in one specific area, not anyone and everyone in all areas, unless of course you are delusional enough to believe we have 300 million plus physicians running around, many of them minor children. Gives a whole new meaning to physician heal thyself.

Yes, I was exaggerating... (Whoa! Like that's never been done here before...)

My point was that, as usual, the implication is that ANYONE not in business for themselves is a...(I think the regurgitated talking-point-of-the-day is "parasite"...) "supporter of big government."

Kind of like the billboard that some neo-nazi put up in Missouri: ""Are you a Producer or Parasite." The line below it reads, "Democrats -- Party of the Parasites.""

So, since you all are probably cheering him on, (and I think it was even quoted in a thread here before", anyone not "producing", i.e., entrepreneur-ing, must be a "parasite" working for someone else?

The point of the OP stands... Doctors are changing their stance as they realize that bulls*** "compassionate conservatism" is a cruel joke, and many of them who went into medicine for reasons of altruism and care about their fellow-man--(a concept totally foreign to the teabaggers and right-wingers)--are realizing that the GOP's worship of profits at the cost of people going without health care is too disgusting even for them.

LadyJazzer wrote: The point of the OP stands... Doctors are changing their stance as they realize that bulls*** "compassionate conservatism" is a cruel joke, and many of them who went into medicine for reasons of altruism and care about their fellow-man--(a concept totally foreign to the teabaggers and right-wingers)--are realizing that the GOP's worship of profits at the cost of people going without health care is too disgusting even for them.

Tell me something LJ. Who is in a better position to pursue their altruistic ideals. The person who works for themselves or someone who must be accountable to someone else for their time? Wouldn't the doctor have a greater opportunity to be altruistic with their charity if they were the ones who decided how much a person should be charged for their services? Isn't the doctor who is self employed in a better position to barter with a patient for the health services they render? Aren't they also better positioned to reduce or eliminate their fees for someone who is poor or down on their luck at the moment?

I have a brother-in-law who is a family physician in Greeley. He chose to work in a poorer rural area because of his altruism. He provides many people with reduced cost or free care, including pre-natal care. That choice is removed from his control when he works for someone else, which is why he works for himself. And yes, he is a Republican and refers to our current executive as Obummer. Now I know that private charity is a concept totally foreign to progressive consolodationists who worship at the alter of single, rather than self, government and think that the fruits of one's own labor are meant to be collected and redistributed according to their belief system instead of the one possessed by the person who earned the money, but that concept is not consistent with liberty. Collective salvation is bondage, not freedom.

Tell me something... Who in the hell dropped dead and gave you the right to decide who is in a better position to pursue their ideals?

...And I'm STILL not interested your teabagger, Federalist, Jeffersonian, 17th/18th-century throwback b.s. of what is consistent with your concept of "liberty." It's as tiresome now as it is every other time you regurgitate it....