I'd like to start by saying this has nothing to do with which healthcare delivery system will be better or whats more fair or what's more moral.
There are issues whenever healthcare gets political. Note the case of Nadya Suleman for an example. Looking at the poll here, 80% of people think the doctor should be "punished" in some way. Why? When I brought this up in a different article, people rushed to attack.
Lets look at embryos. They are the property of the patient. If a patient wants them inserted, the doctor has very little (LEGAL) choice but to insert them. You could say he shouldn't have created 6 embryos, but come now, by that standard you'd have to "punish" many IVF doctors.
In whatever healthcare delivery system that is chosen, these issues will arise. It seems people do not think this issue will ever come up with a single payer system, which to me, is blatantly false. Anyway, for the proponents of a single payer system, one of the obstacles that you folks should be thinking about overcoming is how the adjudication process will work.
What will be deemed "medically necessary"? If I have a bum knee and I can't walk up 4 flights of stairs, does that qualify me for a knee replacement? How about 1 flight of stairs?
How many embryos are allowed? Whose property are they? Is IVF something that should be covered?
What about "experimental cancer procedures"? Who gets them and what are the qualifications?
Medicare recently denied coverage for virtual colonoscopies....do you agree with this decision? As a man, I would prefer a scan of my bum rather than a long prodding session.
Until people get educated, discussing healthcare seems more like mob rule than rational discussion, which is unfortunate. I hope people will reserve judgement and be less angry in the future.
Cheers.
