Health Care Reform, A Doctor’s Perspective

This article is written by a highly esteemed physician about the future of medicine in America. He flatly states that “single-payer” will happen; it is just a matter of time. He openly states that government, as a central part of its plan, is to become the decision-maker, and that which is for the “public good” will take precedence over that which is mandated necessary by the physician for an individual. He makes a good point in saying that Western medicine has become so fantastically technologically advanced as to preclude the ability of the cost/benefit ratio to ever be mitigated. And he further suggests that the current free-market model means there is no incentive for hospitals or insurance companies to curb costs, because costs equal profit, and the burden of profit is born by the patient and the government in the current system.

It is clear that there are only two ways the government can make up the massive debt it is accruing by paying the costs for procedures for people who have contributed far to the system than they are receiving: 1) remove all risk and 2) remove all choice. They are currently attempting to remove risk by forcing everyone to join the system, and thereby distribute the risk across a larger population, and by limiting civil liberties to make life more “safe” (i.e. seat-belt laws). They are hoping to remove all choice by putting themselves between patient and physician, making medical decisions from afar. In the end, this is largely what we have now, just replace “government” with “insurance company.” My major criticism comes from the question of whether the US government should have this role, and whether a government take over of health care is in any way Constitutional. And lastly, how a government run bureaucracy will be more efficient or even more compassionate than a for-profit insurance company. In my many experiences with Medicare and private insurance, they will be neither.

Comrade Obama

Let them eat cake.

There was an attitude in autocratic Russia, when the czar ruled from hundreds or thousands of miles away, that “if only the czar knew about our problems, life would be better.” It was often the case that local lords were terribly abusive and exploitative of the serf population, but since there was an underlying belief that the person of the czar was a divinely inspired man of the people, he would step in and redress their grievances, “if he only knew.” The trouble, in the minds of the peasantry, was that local corruption overcame the far-off benevolence they so fervently believed in, that the relief he sent never reached them, because of the evil tax men and local magistrates, etc. The truth, however, was that not only was relief never sent from on high, it was never even considered. The czar did not know the plight of the serf, and if he did know, he did not care, and the people perceived to be corrupt local officials were administered by even more corrupt officials above them and above them and so on, until the the czar himself, who in fact oversaw it all and reaped the benefits of a system based on exploitation.

The government and the insurance companies are fighting a shadow war, based on the appearance of control and gigantic profits. These profits are reaped by the very men who seek to “change” the system. The officials of the US government, therefore, have nothing to lose by stripping the insurance companies of their power, and in fact much to gain by playing the American people off both systems. The the same corrupt, power-hungry men sit on the boards of directors and the advisory committees, lobbying commissions, and in the senatorial seats themselves.