Universal health care and ‘single-payer’
: A consulting group is about to wrap up its legislative-mandated duties and probably recommend a new universal health-care system
for Massachusetts. Specifically, it will probably (or so it seems) recommend a ‘single-payer system,’ which is a euphemism to hide the unpleasant fact that they’re advocating a ‘government-run’ health care system. Listen, I’m in favor of universal health care. But I think it should be as private and decentralized as possible. There should be choice not only of doctors, but of different types of plans, similar to the federal government’s health-care system for fed employees. Competition is key. Do we really have to rehash that fundamental economic point? Again: Competition is key. But, no, it always comes back to that magic-wand approach: Government-run ‘single payer.’ Think about it: Government run. In Massachusetts. And think about this quote: ''A single-payer entity would have the power to dictate our reimbursement rates, and that would drive physicians out of state and result in an erosion of the health care system,'' said Dr. Charles Welch, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Exactly. ... This plan won’t pass, of course. But it’s just so
discouraging to favor universal health care and then have these same idiots -- stuck in their Great Society mindsets, drawing pretty agency flow charts on paper and thinking it has something to do with reality -- advocate again and again and again the same old, tired approaches.