As a physician, I feel obligated to comment on health care reform, as well as the current health care bill in Congress. Unlike other areas of the political arena, this is an area where I'm straddling the fence—at least on the pending legislation. Though I'm an advocate of health care reform, and support some of the general concepts alluded to in the current legislation (like a public option), I do not support the bill. In fact, I'll go one step further. I think the bill is a complete disaster as it currently stands.

Despite claims to the contrary, reforming the health care system is not that complicated. It only becomescomplicated when every special interest group parasitizing the medical system gets a seat at the table. It's difficult to understand why health insurers should have any input whatsoever. It's a given that health insurance companies are profit-driven entities, whose overriding interest in health care reform is how to increase their already-exorbitant profits, or at least preserve them.

Since premiums are the only source of income for health insurers, increases in premiums increase profits. Reducing payouts for providing medical care also increases profits. Thus, health insurers can further their profit-increasing endeavors by either increasing premiums, reducing medical care, or both.

Thus, what health insurers bring to Obama's big table is their own profit motive—to charge more and provide less care. Do we really want this motive to be a major driving force in health care reform? I certainly don't. And I suspect most Americans don't either. 

Upon reading the current bill, it becomes clear it was not written by physicians, nor was physician input even a major consideration.  In fact, it's difficult to even find evidence of patient input--especially from those who've had problems with their insurance companies.

In contrast, the heavy hand of the health insurance industry is overwhelmingly evident.

Though I haven't read the entire 1000+ page bill, I've scanned the bulk of it, and read certain parts carefully. And despite it's legalistic "attorney-speak" language, some points can be gleaned. And most of them are bad.

Full story