I think it is exactly like the doctor who probably believes he is helping the patient when he prescribes a unneeded medication; the fact that his income is enhanced is just a bonus.

Capitalism minus government equals suffering.

Thanks

Awhile back I was trying to do a post on who the real villin is in health care, the doctor who recomends unneeded treatment, the patient who demands unecessary tests and treatment the insurance companies who don’t pay for anything. Maybe the drug companies who don’t seem to take the patients health very serious and seem very good at ignoring long-term health consequences. Even medical researchers seem to design their experiments to not show any long term or even short term health problems generated by certain drugs and procedures.

The real culprit in this mess is the revered market(sorry Caveat) where everyone acts in what they believe to be their best interests, and in the end it turns into a zero-sum game where the patient almost always loses.

BTW why is Viagra and all the other ED treatments such an heavy advertisor on the Rush Limbaugh show?

When designing a policy program, you cannot just assume away the interest groups–nor, except in Paul Krugman’s imagination, can you simply overcome them through your steely-eyed willingness to engage in “bitter confrontation”. Drug companies make lifesaving drugs that people need, which of course tends to breed resentment when they charge what the market will bear, but also gives them a rather powerful weapon to deploy in the PR war. Similarly, most people are quite content with their current insurance; if you attempt to destroy the insurance companies outright, they will do their best to get all those people worried about what will happen under your new program. These industries are also very important to several highly populous states with powerful senators and congressmen; threaten them and you threaten your coalition.

I mean, these tactics are fine by me; I don’t want national healthcare. But is Paul Krugman interested in making policy, or just making an expressive statement about his youthful ideals?

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/barack_obama_naive_healthcare.php

Selling it to the public…that job has already been done. The polls indicate that and have for years now already. In this instance I’d offer academic health care system experts the seats that would have been occupied by the chiseling would-be terrorists who have bled this country dry for so many years.

Enough is enough…fuck Pfizer and United Health. It’s about time they started earning their money like everybody else has to. Once Americans gain control over the country’s health system, we can then start the de-corruption of the drug approval process and kill 100 birds with one stone by making publicly funded elections the law of the land.

Step by step the private money must expelled from our political process, and there’s no better place to start than health care.

I’m not feeling Krugman’s focus on Obama, but after reading his book, I understand where his heart is in all of this. He’s taking the gloves off…he says it’s about time liberals got tough and flipped “bi-partisanship” the bird.

I’m sending you this book – - – if you want it, let me know. Conscious of a Liberal – - -

If people want perfection or nothing at all it seems like a the status quo will win out. Once it becomes accepted that everyone is entitled to health care and everyone is covered the next step of a single payor system might get some thought. As it is right now it is not politcaly feasible to implement single payor system, and it may not be desirable, I am still thinking that part through. Without a doubt a system that covers everyone is desirable and anyone who is talking about a way to get coverage for everyone should be encouraged. Cynism can become self fulfilling and in this case I hope that is avoided; even if it means working with insuarance companies.