Letter to the editor of the Times Union
Health care equality merits sensible debate
First published (in the Albany Times Union): Sunday, January 15, 2006
A letter (Dec. 30) seeks to ridicule Dr. Alan Miller yet merely patronizes him in a foolish way. In his short essay (op-ed, Dec. 22), Dr. Miller noted that both patients and physicians see grave problems in American health care.
Dr. Miller suggested that health care should be equally available to all members of our society, that individual medical decisions should be made solely between doctors and patients and that physicians, as well as patients, have a stake in seeing that public, not private, interests guide health policy. He concluded that a public insurance system, like Medicare, should cover everyone's medical bills.
The response condescendingly claims to be "for Dr. Miller's edification." But simply invoking the buzzwords "unfunded liability" and touting astronomical deficits (based upon ideological assumptions) sheds no light on these vital issues.
Scrutiny of proposed health care reforms by academics, journalists and others repeatedly demonstrates that Dr. Miller's solution is the only plan that can achieve significant cost savings for the entire health care system.
When the Des Moines Register completed an extensive series of articles in late 2005, "U.S. Health Care: Condition Critical," the newspaper's editorial board came to the same conclusion as Dr. Miller.
So did the award-winning investigative journalists Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele in their 2004 book on American medicine, "Critical Condition."
Dr. Miller's ideas are not outlandish, but eminently sensible -- and practical -- and they merit serious discussion.
ANDREW D. COATES, M.D.
First published (in the Albany Times Union): Sunday, January 15, 2006
A letter (Dec. 30) seeks to ridicule Dr. Alan Miller yet merely patronizes him in a foolish way. In his short essay (op-ed, Dec. 22), Dr. Miller noted that both patients and physicians see grave problems in American health care.
Dr. Miller suggested that health care should be equally available to all members of our society, that individual medical decisions should be made solely between doctors and patients and that physicians, as well as patients, have a stake in seeing that public, not private, interests guide health policy. He concluded that a public insurance system, like Medicare, should cover everyone's medical bills.
The response condescendingly claims to be "for Dr. Miller's edification." But simply invoking the buzzwords "unfunded liability" and touting astronomical deficits (based upon ideological assumptions) sheds no light on these vital issues.
Scrutiny of proposed health care reforms by academics, journalists and others repeatedly demonstrates that Dr. Miller's solution is the only plan that can achieve significant cost savings for the entire health care system.
When the Des Moines Register completed an extensive series of articles in late 2005, "U.S. Health Care: Condition Critical," the newspaper's editorial board came to the same conclusion as Dr. Miller.
So did the award-winning investigative journalists Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele in their 2004 book on American medicine, "Critical Condition."
Dr. Miller's ideas are not outlandish, but eminently sensible -- and practical -- and they merit serious discussion.
ANDREW D. COATES, M.D.
posted by Andy at Tuesday, January 17, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home