And touches off a firestorm of debate on the WSJ Health Blog.
If there was a single thing he could do to lose my vote, endorsing single-payer would be it.
Related posts:
- Single payer: The assault continues
- Single payer ills, part 2
- Max Baucus on single payer: "I’m not going to waste my time"
- Single-payer: Will Americans go for the Prius?
- Single-payer: Read the fine print
- Single payer: Some common sense talk
- More on Illinois’ single-payer death
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 8 comments }
I totally agree, Kevin. Someone should write something about this for Medpolitics.com
Although I am nervous regarding many elements of single payor, it is time that we had the discussion. And in order to have a rational discussion, we need to set aside our knee-jerk reactions. I do not sloganeering on either side, beit “healthcare is a right” or “I do not like socialized medicine.”
I am a relatively young physician (42). I admit that I do not know the answer to the problems of our healthcare system. However, we have never had the debate. When it began in 1993 with the Clintons, it was quickly and effectively squelched by the insurance industry in collusion with the AMA. Well, fellow doctors, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are you better off now than you were 15 years ago? I think not.
It is no secret to anyone who has studied what can be found of his background that this man is, at heart, a marxist.
I have a feeling that for every person who says “If this is his way of dealing with health care then he will lose my vote” there are at least 2 voters who feel the exact opposite.
To anonymous 7:42 PM from anonymous 8:33 AM:
The fact that the best you can come up with is to call Obama a Marxist makes my point that we need to have a rational discussion about the issue.
anon 8:33
The marxist principle “From each according to his means, to each according to his need” is the basic principle underlying single payor. So to recognize that is accurate. Accurate use of language is the beginning of a rational discussion. The next two questions are: Is the principle just? If it is, do you think it workable in this country?
I think it is fundamentally immoral myself. I think the fundamental morality of the principle of private ownership of the product of ones own labor and the fruit of ones own property is intuitively understood by all when applied personally–and fealty to that basic sense of justice is the ultimate source of the collapse of all marxist economic systems eventually. Forced collectivization is unjust.
So what if I am not better off now? What right do my business problems as a physician give me to force everyone to subsidize my practice, whether they use it’s services or not? The fact that I don’t get paid often is my problem. When in history did doctors ever have 100% collections? What business sector doesn’t jump at the change to force everyone to pay into their sector? That doesn’t make it right.
People have as much right to not pay for the healthcare of others–either through taxation or forced insurance purchase–as they have to refuse healthcare in the first place for themselves.
As a solo practice physician, I can tell you that we already have 3 single payor/universal health care systems in the US. Medicare (for seniors), Medicaid(welfare), and Tricare/Champus(military). Only the military one is working. Recently, Medicare was going to cut Doctors reimbersement by 10%, and many decided not to take any new medicare patients, just as we Baby Boomers are retiring. So there it is. We’ll all have “insurance”. But none of us will have doctors. Doctors are so illiterate in the area. 60% want Universal health care…like my teen son says,”DUH!!”
Comments on this entry are closed.