Socialized Medicine in Colorado - An Open Letter to Colorado Physicians

By Paul S. Hsieh, MD (paulhsiehmd@gmail.com)

My name is Dr. Paul Hsieh, and I am a physician practicing in the south Denver metro area. I am deeply concerned that socialized medicine may be imposed on Colorado by our state legislature within the next year or so under the guise of "comprehensive health care reform". I'm morally opposed to this because I believe it would be devastating to our patients and to our medical practices, and I'd like your help in speaking out against this ominous prospect.

The political process which could lead to socialized medicine is already underway, but most working physicians I've spoken with have been unaware of it. Hence, I want to sound the alarm before it's too late. As some of you may know, in June 2006 the Colorado state legislature authorized a special 24-person Commission (called the "208 Commission" after Senate bill SB208) to generate proposals to restructure the health care system in Colorado, and submit them for legislative approval. The Commissioners were chosen by politicians from both political parties. Currently, there are only two doctors on the 208 Commission; the other 22 are representatives of various special interest groups.

The basic premise of the 208 Commission is that the government must guarantee health care for all Coloradoans. During their public meetings, a significant number of the Commissioners have expressed support for some form of socialized medicine. Although they frequently use euphemisms such as "single payer" or "universal mandatory coverage", similar language has been used in other US states and other countries to justify government-mandated socialized medicine. Simultaneously, the Colorado Medical Society (CMS) has developed an official position in which they urged that health care in Colorado should be "universal, continuous, portable, and mandatory".

On January 25, 2007, the CMS submitted those "Guiding Principles" to the 208 Commission, portraying them as the consensus of the doctors of Colorado. They have also stated that the "CMS believes, after extensive vetting and a unanimous vote at the 2006 House of Delegates, that the Guiding Principles represent a compelling consensus of Colorado physicians".

When I first learned of this, I was angered and appalled, because that position does not reflect my views or the views of many other physicians that I've spoken with. The CMS does not speak for me on this issue, and I am not part of this "compelling consensus". I completely oppose any form of socialized medicine, regardless of whether it is called "single payer", "mandatory universal coverage", or anything else, because I believe it would be bad for both patients and doctors. Years of experience in the US and other countries have shown that these programs will hurt patients and cause unnecessary patient deaths. As costs inevitably spiral upward, bureaucrats will ration medical services. Eventually, physicians will be forced to practice against their best medical judgment. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of both doctors and patients.

As a result, in states like Tennessee (which in 1994 implemented its own version of mandatory universal coverage called TennCare), many doctors find the practice climate intolerable and are either leaving the state or quitting medicine entirely. I do not want that to happen in Colorado. States like Massachusetts and California, which are also attempting to guarantee universal health care for their residents, will soon face similar problems.

Although I completely agree that there are genuine problems with the current system, more government interference in medicine can only make things worse, not better. One basic principle we all learned in medical school was, "First, do no harm". This applies as well to politics as it does to clinical practice. Most of the problems of the current system have been the result of bad government policies. Adding more government bureaucrats to the mix will only make things worse.

In my opinion, it is not the government's role to guarantee health care for all Coloradoans, any more than it is the government's job to guarantee all citizens a car, or a job, or a great haircut. It is morally wrong and economically unsustainable. It is precisely the attempts by the governments in Canada and Great Britain (or states like Tennessee) to guarantee universal "cradle-to-grave" coverage that has led to the runaway costs and inadequate health care in those places. I recognize that not everyone will agree with me here, and this is part of my point. This is a very contentious issue amongst doctors. Based on my discussions with numerous physicians, I don't think one can accurately say that there is a "compelling consensus" of the doctors of Colorado.

So if you oppose socialized medicine on the grounds of medical conscience (as I do), then please contact both the Colorado Medical Society and the 208 Commission, and let them know where you stand. The CMS is speaking in your name on this issue, so if you disagree with their position (or if you believe that their position should not be portrayed as the physician "consensus"), then they need to know. The CMS has requested feedback from doctors including those who disagree with their current position, so I urge you to take them up on this.

The 208 Commission is a public body, and has also asked for input from all citizens of Colorado. So if you want to protect your right to practice good medicine and protect your patients' best interests, they need to hear from you. As doctors, we have a lot of credibility with the public, so speaking out now is imperative, before the 208 Commission submits their proposals to the state legislature for a vote. Even a one line e-mail like, "I oppose universal, mandatory coverage or any other form of socialized medicine, because it will be bad for me and my patients", could have a tremendous impact.

For your convenience, I've included links to the e-mail addresses of the relevant parties of both the CMS and the 208 Commission. To contact the CMS, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2ez4mo. To contact the 208 Commission, go to: http://tinyurl.com/yv2o4m.

One excellent resource is the website www.WeStandFIRM.org, a non-profit group of Coloradoans devoted to freedom and individual rights in medicine. I especially recommend the article, "Health Care is Not a Right" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. If you wish to stay informed on this topic, I also encourage you to sign up for their mailing list or read their blog. Also, please feel free to forward this open letter to any other Colorado physicians that may be interested. A copy of this letter is also available online at: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org/docs/Hsieh-01.html

Disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but an independent voter. My objections to socialized medicine go beyond party politics.

Source




Buckpassing government medicine kills

A DOCTOR told to give anti-seizure medication to a teenage patient with a fractured skull told a Sydney inquest today she did not believe the instruction was too urgent or important. Vanessa Anderson, 16, died at Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital in November 2005 after being hit on the head by a golf ball during a tournament. Glebe Coroners' Court has been told Vanessa was not given any anti-convulsant medication before she suffered a seizure and died.

The inquest into her death today heard evidence from Dr Nicole Williams, who had been the neurosurgical senior resident at the hospital for two weeks when Vanessa died on November 8. Dr Williams told the hearing that on November 7, consultant neurosurgeon Nicholas Little had told her to give the patient the anti-convulsant drug Phenytoin. Dr Williams said Dr Little appeared to waver over the decision and she formed the opinion that "we could write some up, but it probably wasn't that urgent and wasn't that important".

After Vanessa's family raised concerns that she could be allergic to Phenytoin, Dr Williams asked a more senior doctor, neurosurgical registrar Azizi Bakar, whether the drug should be administered. Dr Bakar nodded "to acknowledge what I said and made a comment like `it's OK'," she told the court. Dr Williams said she believed Dr Bakar was experienced enough to decide whether Vanessa should be given the drug or an alternative medication. It was the end of her shift and she thought the matter had become Dr Bakar's responsibility, she told the court.

Asked whether she thought she no longer had a role to play regarding the anti-convulsant medication, Dr Williams said: "That's the way I saw it."

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************