No, the reason doctors putz around with insurance bureaucrats is:
- preexisting conditions which would not be the case with nationalized health care as everyone is covered.
- the profit motive where denial of coverage, even when the company is obligated to pay, is still done. Just as with Healthnet, they simply did not want to pay. This does not occur in nationalized health care as, again, everyone is covered.
If there is additional coverage, then it is would be well defined for things like cosmetic surgery. It isn't specific such as patient X doesn't get coverage for cancer under his policy since it was a preexisting condition but patient Y does get coverage under the same policy because it is a new problem.
On the margin, there may be arguments about what is or is not allowed but they wouldn't be routine and would certainly not cost doctors nearly one third of their hours.
Again, have you tried to sell to Walmart? It does not take a government for a buyer to have such power and that power exists in other market segments. Who buys tanks and armored Humvees and the services of mercenaries? Why are the high prices of medical services and pharmaceuticals protected in your eyes? What makes them special that the AMA should be able to restrict the number of doctors for all these years?
So you think that companies should be trusted to provide Fen-Phen and Vioxx to the market based on, what, their own private certification? Really? Can I sell you some poisoned toothpaste, deadly dog food, full leaded baby toys? Even with government regulation we still get bacteria laden spinach and cars that explode. Heck, even with regulation we get fradulent and down right stupid mortgages.
This is where 'libertarians' or 'libertarian wannabes' begin to fall down. The 'free market' nonsense does not work. It sounds as if regulation can be taken over by consumers voting with their dollars or (and you don't even like this) suing producers. That is an ineffective, inefficient way to regulate the market as we see time and time again.
The majority of doctors are for nationalized health care because they despise for profit health insurance companies. I'm quite sure the majority of Americans would be happy to see the back of them as well. Why are you so adamant about protecting the profits of this small group of people to the detriment of the american public?
How do you know that unresponsiveness is more of a factor in the public sector? It depends on the organization itself and the attitude of those who run it. It is not a matter of whether something is public or private but of the quality of management.
No, if the quality of American health care was rising sufficiently to keep pace with its exploding costs, there wouldn't be as much need to reform it. As it is, the quality of American healthcare is insufficient to justify its costs. |
