Obama’s Personal Doctor 'Knocks' ObamaCare?

Obama’s internist from Chicago, David Scheiner, says that Obama is on a wrong track with regards to health care reform. No, he is not a doctor opposing health care reform but is recommending a single payer system. From Forbes:

Scheiner, 71, was Obama’s doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House; he vouched for the then-candidate’s “excellent health” in a letter last year. He’s still an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but he worries about whether the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress will actually do any good, particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. “I’m not sure he really understands what we face in primary care,” Scheiner says.

Scheiner takes a few other shots too. Looking at Obama’s team of health advisors, Scheiner doesn’t see anyone who’s actually in the trenches. “I have a suspicion they pick people from the top echelon of medicine, people who write about it but haven’t been struggling in it,” he says.

Scheiner is critical of Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary–Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who used to work as the chief lobbyist for her state’s trial lawyers association.

“He doesn’t see all the pain, it’s so tragic out here,” he says. “Obama’s wonderful, but on this one I’m not sure if he’s getting the right input.”

What should the president be focused on? Scheiner thinks that a good health reform would be “Medicare for all,” a single-payer system where the government would cover everyone and pay for it by cutting out waste in the system. “A neurosurgeon gets paid $20,000 for cutting into the neck of my patient. Have him get paid $1 million a year instead of $2 million or $3 million. He won’t starve,” Scheiner says.

Conservatives apparently loved the title of the article (Obama’s Doctor Knocks ObamaCare) and the beginning, but then had to change the tone after reading Scheiner’s support for a single payer plan. Gawker noted:

After first quoting approvingly, the National Review’s Mark Hemingway actually updated his post on Schneier. He had initially quoted the first three paragraphs and concluded “Ouch.” But then he read all the way to the sixth paragraph and discovered Schneier spouting Maoist propaganda. Like we said, whatever. The headline’s out there. Take it away, Hannity.

Scheiner also said that the proposed public plan doesn’t go far enough, and that Obama isn’t doing enough on malpractice reform:

Scheiner, like most others in his profession, thinks that it should be harder to sue doctors and that awards should be capped. He says that he and other doctors must order too many tests and imaging studies just to avoid being sued.

While conservatives often exaggerate the significance of malpractice when they sometimes claim that solving this problem will end most of the cost problems, the fact remains that this is probably the largest area where health care expenses can be cut without lowering quality. It makes little sense to talk about saving small amounts of money in other areas, or to spend large amounts of money on computerization of medical records in the hopes of future savings, without doing anything about money wasted on defensive medicine.

Malpractice reform will provide a test of whether the Obama and the Congressional Democrats are more concerned about lowering health care costs or appeasing the trial lawyers who typically support them.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

"After first quoting

"After first quoting approvingly, the National Review’s Mark Hemingway actually updated his post on Schneier. He had initially quoted the first three paragraphs and concluded “Ouch.” But then he read all the way to the sixth paragraph and discovered Schneier spouting Maoist propaganda. Like we said, whatever. The headline’s out there. Take it away, Hannity."

Reminds me of Ironman's "wow" post about a Krugman quote. Looks like he mayn't have even bother to read the lenghty article he was refering to. Apparently, the recently unearthed Krugman quote was being circulated among some conservative blogs. It was enough for him to make a judgment of what the author was saying in the article. Too bad, like National Review's Hemingway he doesn't take the responsibility to acknowledge it though.

 

 

Health care is a huge national concern....

Health care is a huge national concern.  There's a lot of talk about health care reform, and the industry does need it, especially since so many people that are only after the most basic of care have to get emergency cash loans to cover something as simple as a simple antibiotics script, and a full third of the nation is without health insurance.  The lead researcher for the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, Elliot Fisher, a practitioner for over 20 years, has pointed out that areas that spend more on health care interestingly spend more on unnecessary procedures, and have higher mortality rates.  So why do we need payday cash advances for health care that is worse when more expensive?

 

 

There should be public health care, but w/limits

There should be some sort of public health plan - but in a limited context.  Granted, the private sector is the ideal solution to any problem, because the leviathan of govnernmental bureaucracy just isn't able to summon the appropriate action in any kind of decent time frame. However, a public health plan of some sort would be desirable, but only for the most basic of health care.  Clinics, that sort of thing, where people go to get a script for their ailments and bumps and bruises looked at.  Obviously, surgeons and specialists are people that have a limited practice that assumes both larger costs and - in the case of cardiologists, oncologists, etc - a greater amount of risk in treatment and therefore need to be able to have the freedom of movement that private practice allows for. 

I can't really think of a good enough argument for creating a public health administration wherein the most basic of care is taxpayer paid for.  Waiting times are already awful, and hospitals and clinics already eat the costs of a lot of people's visits if they can't afford to pay.  The private sector obviously isn't batting .500 or greater in this arena, and if it's the bulk of treatment anyway, why shouldn't a public health plan be not only discussed, but seriously looked into?  The doctors that staff clinics and hospital ERs aren't the Mercedes fleet owning country club member types to begin with, and to be frank, haven't we enriched the insurance and pharmaceutical companies enough at this point?