Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Realism" and single payer

PNHP reacts to Stephen Brill's piece in Time:

After providing nearly 20 pages of damning evidence -- against both the excesses and inefficiencies of the private health insurance industry, and the runaway profiteering of hospitals, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers -- he arrives, or appears to arrive, at the obvious point: that is, “the best way both to lower the deficit and to help save money for people” is “the single payer approach favored by liberals and used by most developed nations.” Here [Brill] is right on the mark. But then abruptly, having just provided an argument that clearly supports it, he dismisses this conclusion. He provides two reasons for backing away from single payer: first, “no doctor could hope for anything approaching the income he or she deserves (and that will encourage future doctors to want to practice).” Second, “this kind of systemic overhaul ... seems unrealistic” given the extraordinary political power and influence of the health care industry.

Ah. "Unrealistic."

The first assertion is factually incorrect. In fact, most doctors would earn the same under a single-payer system as they do now. The main difference in the professional life of myself and of tens of thousands of physicians like me would be freedom from the unimaginably exhausting and time-consuming demands of private insurance company rules and regulations. For those doctors whose high incomes ($1 million or more annually) result from billing for individual procedures like cardiac catheterization and joint replacements, incomes would likely suffer somewhat, but would certainly remain in the mid- to high-five figures. It’s hard to believe that as a nation, we would reject such urgently needed reforms simply to protect these multimillion-dollar salaries [Oh?].

The second assertion -- that it “seems unrealistic” for Medicare to be improved and expanded to include comprehensive coverage for all Americans -- is logically flawed. Brill himself admits that the halfway measures he goes on to propose are similarly “unlikely to happen” given the current political power structure. Beyond this, if our society had followed his logic in 1917 or 1954, today we’d be living in a country where women were forbidden to vote and where schools were separated by race.

The injustice of our current health care system is a civil rights issue as urgent as women’s suffrage and desegregation. Now the oppressed are not only women or minorities, but all of us who find ourselves outside the 1 percent of wealth and influence. An improved and expanded Medicare for All would change this. Virtually all other developed countries know this. When will we wake up to this?

5
Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Jim Recht, M.D. wrote:

For those doctors whose high incomes ($1 million or more annually) result from billing for individual procedures like cardiac catheterization and joint replacements, incomes would likely suffer somewhat, but would certainly remain in the mid- to high-five figures. It’s hard to believe that as a nation, we would reject such urgently needed reforms simply to protect these multimillion-dollar salaries.

Dr. Hecht meant to claim their annual incomes "would certainly" end up settling "in the mid- to high-six figures."

Submitted by lambert on

But what's an order of magnitude difference between friends?

zot23's picture
Submitted by zot23 on

Being an engineerd, that actually stopped me for a second. From 7 figures to 5 yearly? That's actually quite a dramatic cut, they've got a good reason to be pissed! ;)

I won't listent to a moment of this austerity nonsense until we're willing to embrace the MASSIVE cost savings of singer payer and the utterly brainless removal of the SS cap (brainless not to do do it and make the program secure forever.) Total crap.