Monday, June 13, 2011
Medicare for all
If Medicare is so much better than private insurance, why didn’t the Affordable Care Act simply extend Medicare to cover everyone? The answer, of course, was interest-group politics: realistically, given the insurance industry’s power, Medicare for all wasn’t going to pass, so advocates of universal coverage, myself included, were willing to settle for half a loaf. But the fact that it seemed politically necessary to accept a second-best solution for younger Americans is no reason to start dismantling the superior system we already have for those 65 and over.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
national health insurance system
Letter
The Politics of Doctors
Published: June 2, 2011
Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
.
To the Editor:
“As Physicians’ Jobs Change, So Do Their Politics” (“Doctors Inc.” series, front page, May 30) illustrates the fallacy of the doctor-entrepreneur as a model for the delivery of ethical health care in the 21st century.
Doctors have a duty to advocate for their patients, both individually in their offices and collectively in the debate about the provision of health care to society.
In both instances, when a doctor’s concerns about his “small business” conflict with what is best for a patient, the doctor should choose to serve the patient’s best interest.
The use of unindicated tests, invasive procedures and antibiotics are the potential result of a doctor-entrepreneur protecting the wrong interest.
MICHAEL E. SHAPIRO
Hackensack, N.J., May 31, 2011
The writer is the chief of organ transplantation at Hackensack University Medical Center.
To the Editor:
According to your article, “there are no national surveys that track doctors’ political leanings.” There is, however, one statistically valid survey of doctors’ opinion that backs up the idea of a leftward shift.
An article in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2008 showed that support for government establishment of a national health insurance system among doctors nationwide had jumped to 59 percent from 49 percent in 2002.
There was, of course, variation by specialty, with higher support among primary care doctors and less in subspecialties.
STEVEN B. AUERBACH
New York, May 31, 2011
The writer is a pediatrician.
The Politics of Doctors
Published: June 2, 2011
Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Reprints
Share
.
To the Editor:
“As Physicians’ Jobs Change, So Do Their Politics” (“Doctors Inc.” series, front page, May 30) illustrates the fallacy of the doctor-entrepreneur as a model for the delivery of ethical health care in the 21st century.
Doctors have a duty to advocate for their patients, both individually in their offices and collectively in the debate about the provision of health care to society.
In both instances, when a doctor’s concerns about his “small business” conflict with what is best for a patient, the doctor should choose to serve the patient’s best interest.
The use of unindicated tests, invasive procedures and antibiotics are the potential result of a doctor-entrepreneur protecting the wrong interest.
MICHAEL E. SHAPIRO
Hackensack, N.J., May 31, 2011
The writer is the chief of organ transplantation at Hackensack University Medical Center.
To the Editor:
According to your article, “there are no national surveys that track doctors’ political leanings.” There is, however, one statistically valid survey of doctors’ opinion that backs up the idea of a leftward shift.
An article in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2008 showed that support for government establishment of a national health insurance system among doctors nationwide had jumped to 59 percent from 49 percent in 2002.
There was, of course, variation by specialty, with higher support among primary care doctors and less in subspecialties.
STEVEN B. AUERBACH
New York, May 31, 2011
The writer is a pediatrician.
Why we need universail health care
Seattle, WA
June 7th, 2011
7:18 am
As usual, Brooks wraps his demagoguery in a haze of oversimplification.
Statements from Rep. Pelosi and others that Medicare benefits need not be reduced do not represent "doing nothing." Rather, they point the way towards restructuring Medicare so that it can provide health security to seniors in a much more cost effective manner. For example, as Paul Krugman and other have written, Canada and other countries achieve health security for seniors (and even young and middle aged people!) in a manner that is much more cost-effective than the U.S. Medicare program. They accomplish this by not being allergic to single-payer or other forms of centralized governmental planning.
Brooks pitches the so-called "decentralized market-based" approach, but that's how traditional employer-provided health insurance works, and from a cost control point of view it has been a total failure. Most large companies have teams of health care buyers, or insurance providers who act on their behalf in negotiating with health care providers. These are sophisticated consumers, and yet this approach has totally failed to reduce health care costs. Why on earth would anyone think that seniors buying individual coverage, with their bewildering confusion of policy provisions and hidden exclusions and all the other forms of fraud practiced by insurance companies, would reduce costs by any means other than just denying health care?
The Republican approach is to reduce health care spending through the simple means of making health care unaffordable for many seniors. Yes, that saves the government money, but families have to pick up the pieces by paying for care for their aging parents. We, the middle class, will get slammed by this when our aging parents need care.
Brooks slams "top-down control," but the fact is this: many other countries use top-down control for health care, and it works much better than our decentralized so-called "free-market" approach. It's been tried, it works, and it costs much less than what we do.
Mr. Brooks, when are you going to write about European health care systems? When are you going to offer some reasons why we should not move in the same direction as the rest of the civilized world?
Recommend Recommended by 404 Readers
June 7th, 2011
7:18 am
As usual, Brooks wraps his demagoguery in a haze of oversimplification.
Statements from Rep. Pelosi and others that Medicare benefits need not be reduced do not represent "doing nothing." Rather, they point the way towards restructuring Medicare so that it can provide health security to seniors in a much more cost effective manner. For example, as Paul Krugman and other have written, Canada and other countries achieve health security for seniors (and even young and middle aged people!) in a manner that is much more cost-effective than the U.S. Medicare program. They accomplish this by not being allergic to single-payer or other forms of centralized governmental planning.
Brooks pitches the so-called "decentralized market-based" approach, but that's how traditional employer-provided health insurance works, and from a cost control point of view it has been a total failure. Most large companies have teams of health care buyers, or insurance providers who act on their behalf in negotiating with health care providers. These are sophisticated consumers, and yet this approach has totally failed to reduce health care costs. Why on earth would anyone think that seniors buying individual coverage, with their bewildering confusion of policy provisions and hidden exclusions and all the other forms of fraud practiced by insurance companies, would reduce costs by any means other than just denying health care?
The Republican approach is to reduce health care spending through the simple means of making health care unaffordable for many seniors. Yes, that saves the government money, but families have to pick up the pieces by paying for care for their aging parents. We, the middle class, will get slammed by this when our aging parents need care.
Brooks slams "top-down control," but the fact is this: many other countries use top-down control for health care, and it works much better than our decentralized so-called "free-market" approach. It's been tried, it works, and it costs much less than what we do.
Mr. Brooks, when are you going to write about European health care systems? When are you going to offer some reasons why we should not move in the same direction as the rest of the civilized world?
Recommend Recommended by 404 Readers
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
