Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hocndoc
I don't like that service providers should have the government dictate reimbursment.

I dislike the government taking over aspects of healthcare
simply because the government has been proven inept.

But the argument that such a takeover would result in a
bureaucrat dictating heathcare is not necessarily what it seems.

Folks don't get to decide that NOW for themselves.

I don't get to decide what treatment I get. Some title-wielding
"doctor" does. Who stands to profit thereby. How will a
government agent change anything at the treatment level?
It's STILL not MY decision.

There is a "doctor" who decides. This "doctor" stands
to gain financially from any decisions. The person involved
does NOT have a say in any treatment, other than "no".

Do I want a disinterested pencil-pusher or a greedy
arrogant title-user deciding what I need? Not thrilled about either.

I'd probably tend toward the fellow without the fake royalty title.

I'd still call him a liar when he claims his name is "doctor" though.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

17 posted on 02/22/2010 2:28:02 PM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: humblegunner

Unfortunately, if the government takes over, you’ll have the pencil pushers forcing the docs to be their agents in deciding how best to manage “limited resources.” And they’ll limit them as best as they can.


18 posted on 02/22/2010 3:56:36 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson