Here’s an amusing response (see the “update” section) to yesterday’s post about how generally clueless the ”reality-based” community seems to be regarding the implications of single-payer health care. Ron Chusid describes my comments as follows:
The post … gives a totally inaccurate view of Medicare … [and] claims that Medicare is socialized medicine, controlling the health care delivery system.
He then proceeds to sing the praises of Medicare in the following terms:
Medicare is one of the least restrictive and bureaucratic plans I deal with. For the most part I can practice medicine without having to worry about a set of bizarre rules.
First, it’s interesting that Chusid doesn’t point out any specific instances where my comments are “totally inaccurate,” and the one declarative statement he does make is itself inaccurate. My post on Medicare doesn’t claim that it is socialized medicine, but rather that it is a prototype single-payer system whose well-documented ills will be duplicated many times over in any comprehensive government-run health care system, whether one calls it “socialized medicine,” “universal health care,” or whatever.
As to experience, I have been the front-line finance guy in three not-for-profit hospitals and one large (41 docs) medical practice. So, my view of Medicare is driven not by “political philosphy” but by day-to-day experience with its many reimbursement and regulatory caprices. Moreover, most of the physicians with whom I have worked would describe Chusid’s positive comments about Medicare to be symptomatic of Stockholm Syndrome.
Post a Comment