On Saturday, the New York Times ran a piece on the shortage of primary care
doctors, noting that "in Massachusetts, in an unintended
consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being
exacerbated by the state's new law requiring residents to have
health insurance." It may be unintended, but it sure shouldn't be
seen as unanticipated that subsidizing health care for more people
would lead to long lines and a further strain on supply.
The article centers around the practice of family physician Dr.
Katherine J. Atkinson, whose calendar is so backed up, that the
next available appointment isn't until May 2009. At the end of the
article, she laments the fact that government-run health care
programs do not reimburse her adequately:
"I calculated that every time I have a Medicare
patient it's like handing them a $20 bill when they leave," she
said. "I never went into medicine to get rich, but I never expected
to feel as disrespected as I feel. Where is the incentive for a
practice like ours?"
So in other words, through existing socialized medicine programs,
the government is removing financial incentives for doctors who
want to become primary care physicians and thus reducing their
supply, and then Massachusetts came along and decided to require
everybody to obtain health insurance, and to heavily subsidize it.
And we're supposed to be surprised by the results?
I've been hard on Mitt Romney on this blog, but I'll give him
credit for one thing. By making such a mess of things in
Massachusetts, those of us who still consider ourselves free market
conservatives have a real life example to point to that
demonstrates why government mandated universal health care is a
recipe for disaster. Or, at the very minimum, the failure of
RomneyCare will make it easier to argue against the more squishy
conservatives who believe that the only way to stop socialized
medicine is to settle with liberals for "the best we can get."
topics:
Health Care, Law, Medicare
