Well said Lou Re: Re: true liberal and healthcare

[Guest guest]

Lou --Well said. I like that perspective. The words used for

labels perhaps are too emotionally laden due to our histories and past problems.ThanksTim > On Mon, February

16, 2009 4:11 pm EST, l_spikol wrote:> > > I think perhaps we have different definitions of what

" socialism " > really is. It might be more useful to describe a

healthcare system> that we would want to build and then figure out how to

get there-> > How about-> > 1. A system that

provides basic human services and healthcare to> all of its citizens.> > 2. A government that is transparent, not corrupted and serves

its> citizens.> > 3. A system that does recognize the

variability of physicians and> patients and rewards work and excellence on

both the physician and> patient side.> > 4. A system

that recognizes medicine both as an art and dare I say> also as a science. The " artsy part " recognizes variability in> treatment and

response, but the scientific part does represent> acknowledgment of those

issues that have been scientifically proven.> > 5. A recognition

within the government and society that medical> rationing will occur

whether it be implicit (those without insurance> get no or less healthcare)

or explicit (where going to admit that> there are some things that have

very little return for the patient> and/or society we live in).>

> > I'm not sure whether I'd call something like this

socialistic> capitalistic or whenever but I would call it " a

reasonably logical> system " > > That is-a system

beats no system (right now we have no system)> > > > > > > > > > >> > I've been surprised reading this thread. Moving our

healthcare> system> > to be more socialistic sounds nice as the

desire is for all people> to> > receive a certain level

care.> >> > But, I thought we all had first hand experience

with the Medicare> and> > Medicaid government imposed price

controls. This pleasing> experience> > should have taught all

of us to be wary. Private insurance> companies> > have

followed Medicare's lead in these reductions. These controls> > have

crushed primary care and driven residents away from the field.> >> > Next, the new " Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative> > Effectiveness Research " should make all of us wary too. The> Daschle> > quote that " Doctors have to give up

autonomy " and " learn to operate> > less like solo

practitioners " is the concern. It will be> interesting> >

to see if the federal board remembers that medicine is an art and> some> > patients respond differently to commonly effective treatments.>

>> > Finally, do we really believe that more government involvement

will> > spur innovation in medicine? Why would a pharmaceutical

company> > research and release a product if it can't make money doing

so?> What> > incentive will there be for developing new

treatments if the> providers> > won't get paid for them until

they are " proven " ? Altruism goes> only> > so far.> >> > Yes, our current system is flawed in several respects but

moving it> > more in the socialized direction will lead to rationing,

reduced> > treatment options for our patients and reduced innovation. There> are> > better ways.> >> >

> > > ------------------------------------> >