Should there be preconditions for patients in order for universal care to be enacted?
Chris Rangel weighs the “practical interest in keeping the workforce healthy and reducing the economic burdens from people who become sick and disabled as a result of unhealthy or risky lifestyles” versus the “undue burdens on beneficiaries” that can “lead to decreased participation.”
Dr. Rangel points out that under any reform plan that increases the role of the government, physicians will be under greater scrutiny to meet quality guidelines and decrease practice variability.
Shouldn’t patients be held accountable as well?
Related posts:
- Should parents who refuse to vaccinate their children be held accountable?
- Are physician-patients held to a higher standard?
- My take: Dr. Nurses, supporting universal care
- Holding doctors hostage for universal care
- Can universal health care lead to a restriction of individual freedoms?
- Do some patients not deserve health care reform?
- How universal health care can hurt military recruitment
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
Sorry for a bit of a tangent.
I know it became popular after the campaign, but can we please not let the word “preconditions” catch on? It’s redundant, and I don’t want to have another “irregardless” popping up all over the place.
Thanks
“Everything under the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” –Mussolini.
Just more creeping fascism.
Actually is a perfectly logical idea–which is precisely why we will continue to lose our liberty in direct proportion to our growing dependence on the state for our security.
Comments on this entry are closed.