Nationalized Healthcare

[Mr. Wynand]

When I came across this, my hatred of the government was at an all time high

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090305/doctors_flat_fees.html?.v=1

[John McVey]

This is the same kind of healthcare that Dr Peikoff praised, not long ago I think.

On a pure technical level, the regulators are right: it's insurance. But, that's not really what the issue is and what's motivating the regulators to pursue the matter now. Smack bang in the middle of an article on the technicalities of definitions comes this killer quote:

Critics fear they siphon much-needed primary care doctors from insurance networks and raise questions about equity -- especially models that promise to make doctors more available to the fee-paying patients. The American Medical Association says retainer practices raise ethical concerns but also expand health care options.

There you have the ugliness and evil of socialised medicine presented in black and white: equity is held superior to quality and quantity. It is deemed "unethical" for doctors to consider themselves anything other than servants, particularly of the poor. That is to be cherished even though they know very well it's implementation would mean cutting into the quality and range of medical services available. Damn your profitability and efficiency, doctor, you're NEEDED and that's sufficient justification for the representatives of the needy to clap you in irons!

I am surprised they were that blunt about it, and I don't think the intent of that quote was to make a case against the regulators.

JJM

[Mr. Wynand]

I bet you could ask almost any hard-working man or women and they would side with the doctor, yet our country is descending into collectivism. What's wrong with this picture?

[IchorFigure]

Paul Hsieh has written a number of posts about concierge medical practice on the FIRM blog.

I think it goes to show the real intentions of some of the advocates for affordable health-care for the "little guy". They feign like they want medical care to be available to more people, and yet when doctors actually emerge with a creative solution to do precisely that, they leer at them and shake a fist threatening to revoke that privilege. It seems like the crux of their argument lies in their poor definition of insurance:

AMG's Web site declares the arrangement isn't insurance, but the Insurance Department says it meets the definition: charging a regular fee to provide a benefit in case of an unforeseen event, such as an illness or injury. Insurers are required to submit to a licensing process that examines their finances and capacity to deliver what they promise.