Maybe, the problem lies not so much with the law that was passed ... but rather the interpretation and implementation of it by those individuals chosen to the administer it. I don't see how the administrator of the program can have any effect on the fact that there's a shortage of medical providers.
Your statement sounds like that old tired argument for communism...you just need the right people to make it work.
News flash - a bad idea is a bad idea...no matter who is in charge of it. Communism, universal healthcare, etc.
You totally misinterpret or misunderstood what I was saying.
I have spent 27 in State government (Texas Comptrollers Office) before retiring. The Legislature's give much authority to the State Agencies and Commissions they create to interpret and implement the statutes they pass. The court reviews when law suits are brought (but doesn't always over rule the State Agency). Then again the Legislature doesn't revisit what they've done all the time and straighten out State Agencies decisions, unless a big donor or sufficient constituents claims they were harmed. Many of these Agencies wield great power with little or no Legislative oversight, ongoing Legislative oversight.
You might be right that there is a shortage of providers but here in Austin I really don't see that. The Yellow Pages has dozens of pages of MD's of all stripe and kind. Many are GP's and PCP's in administered health care programs (insurance companies and State mandated) or clinics. Some sections of the country may have shortages, I would not contest that ... and law suits have caused doctors to leave the medical field. How many were GP's I do not know rather than specialists or surgeons.
Many people just don't get health insurance, for a variety of reasons. [See
Five Myths of Health Care (Number (1) specifically)]. Or they go into a hospital, clinic or emergency rooms and get the government to pay for it under care for the poor and indigent. City, County and State budgets have funds for this specific purpose.
The right people would be nice to have ... but this isn't a perfect world. My point is the State have a bureaucracy to manage health care and invariably appointing those who believe in social programs, for health care, running it. Never a conservative or libertarian ... that is a problem in government at every level in this country. The State's also have and a variety of other areas in which Agencies oversee the day-to-day working of them for the State. Politicians (the bulk of them, not all of them) believe they are elected to control and to keep the job for life getting rich and well-known in the process.
A better system is to have the patient and the doctor in charge, with government and lawyers out. Insurance companies must be involved, since not everyone is independently wealth and can afford to pay cash. The insurance companies must surely weigh the risks if they are to provide coverage but should not be the final arbiter (medical professionals here) on what coverage is included or excluded, especially life saving surgeries or treatments.
But we do have a problem in general because many of the lawyers involved are government lawyers ... a double whammy. Couple them with tort lawyers and they have negotiated not only your health care but your future.