Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia – 5/29/08

This page was last updated on May 31, 2008.

Dump ‘mangled care’; Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, M.D.; Beaver County Times; May 29, 2008.

Don’t let the “M.D.” at the end of Ms. Vogel-Scibilia’s name fool you. This letter is about politics, not healthcare. You’ll see what I mean below.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The recent news in the Annals of Internal Medicine that more than half of American physicians now support national health insurance has caught many people by surprise.

“It shouldn’t have.”

[RWC] I honestly don’t care that allegedly “more than half of American physicians now support national health insurance.” I go to doctors for medical advice and treatment, not political advice. Maybe we need to get a list of those doctors published on the Internet so I know whom to avoid the next time I’m looking for a doctor.

“Doctors see the up-close cost of a broken health-care system, and the tragic consequences when people delay or go without treatment because they couldn’t afford it. The Institute of Medicine recently determined that 18,000 adults die each year mainly because they lack adequate insurance coverage.

“The current health-care system involves a patchwork of hundreds of private health-insurance companies seeking maximum profits and paying sky-high CEO salaries. It has saddled us with the highest overhead and administrative expenses in the world while 47 million Americans — 9 million of them children — are uninsured, and another 60 million are underinsured.”

[RWC] When did “profits,” “CEO salaries,” and “overhead and administrative expenses” become the primary factor in determining healthcare efficacy? These are just the first examples of what I meant when I wrote about that this “letter is about politics, not healthcare.”

Regarding the 47 million uninsured figure, it’s bogus and I describe why in my healthcare paper.

“Our health outcomes are worse than many other less wealthy nations.

“Don’t let the alarmists scare you. A single-party, national health-insurance system could be a guaranteed insurance for everyone and cover the same services that ‘mangled care’ currently provides with freedom to choose your doctor, no deductibles and no co-pays.”

[RWC] Ah, name-calling. If you oppose a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly you’re an “alarmist.” Yep, that’s a medical argument if I ever heard one – not.

“Urge your legislator to support H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, and cut the big insurance companies out of the picture.”

[RWC] “[C]ut the big insurance companies out of the picture?” Another medical recommendation? Does Ms. Vogel-Scibilia study at the William Horter school of socialized medicine? <g>

I encourage you to read H.R. 676. Among other provisions, the bill prohibits for-profit healthcare providers from participating and insurers aren’t allowed to sell policies covering procedures supposedly covered by the socialized system. FYI, Quebec, Canada, tried the latter prohibition and even the Canada Supreme Court knocked it down, saying, “Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.”

“Do it for yourself and your loved ones. I am one of 15,000 members of Physicians for a National Health Program.”

[RWC] At least Ms. Vogel-Scibilia didn’t describe PNHP as nonpartisan. In fact, PNHP is a leftist organization as evidenced from the following quotes from the PNHP mission statement.

· “PNHP views this campaign as part of the campaign for social justice in the United States. PNHP opposes for-profit control, and especially corporate control, of the health system and favors democratic control, public administration, and single-payer financing.”

· “PNHP believes this program should be financed by truly progressive taxation.”

· “PNHP is an independent, non-partisan, voluntary organization. PNHP’s work is supported by our members’ dues and contributions, and by grants from progressive [my emphasis] foundations.”

Whenever someone writes about “social justice,” it’s a red (no pun intended) flag the position is coming from the left. In this case, also mentioning an opposition to profit seals the deal.

“[T]ruly progressive taxation” is a euphemism for “truly regressive taxation.” In leftist ideology, “progressive” taxation means the more you earn, the more you must give to the government and the less you get to keep for your family. Many lefties believe 100% of earnings above a certain level should be confiscated. FDR tried this during World War II, but the Democrat-majority Congress “compromised” on 94%.

Lefties also use “progressive” as a euphemism for leftist, liberal, Marxist, socialist, et cetera. Thus when the mission statement says “progressive foundations” fund the PNHP, it really means leftist foundations. It would be nice to know the names of the organizations giving grants to PNHP, but they aren’t identified on the PNHP website.

Above I gave Ms. Vogel-Scibilia credit for not calling the PNHP nonpartisan, but I can’t do that for the PNHP itself. Lefties use “non-partisan” to describe themselves, though they tend to be more careful than we saw here. In one sentence the PNHP describes itself as “non-partisan,” and in the next proclaims it’s supported “by grants from progressive [leftist] foundations.”

Finally, here’s what I wrote in a comment posted on the Times website: “Even if I believed (which I don’t) the idea a government-run, taxpayer-funded monopoly could deliver healthcare cheaper than a true free market system (which we haven’t had since at least WWII) for a given level of accessibility, choice, quality, timeliness of treatment, etc., I’d oppose it because my freedom isn’t for sale.

“When we went with a government-run, taxpayer-funded monopoly to educate our kids, we gave up a bit of our liberty. Very few families can afford to pay both school taxes and the tuition of a private school. We lost another bit of freedom with the enactment of Socialist Security, another bit with Medicare, and so on. Since the line of thinking used by nationalized/socialized healthcare system proponents also applies to every other industry, where do we draw the line? Do we stop at healthcare, or do we move onto the next industry whose ‘overhead and administrative expenses’ are deemed ‘excessive’ by someone?

“Every time we turn over a personal responsibility to the government, or push a local government responsibility to the state or feds, we’re selling our liberty one piece at a time.”