I read Dr. Lewis' article with some interest, because to some extent, his views reflect some of my own. Having recently attended the panel discussion at the Adam's Mark, I came away with mixed feelings because while there was significant disparity among the physicians in the audience, it was not until I reviewed the text of the different approaches taken by the panelists, and ruminated upon them that I realized that there is, in fact, no significant disparity among all four approaches. This takes some explanation, so let me begin by asking readers to clear their minds and be willing to accept a new paradigm of the delivery of healthcare. Included in this mission is the reality that providers need adequate compensation for their work, and a feeling of empowerment. Each approach championed in the discussion has its merits.
Socialized medicine has the virtue of simplicity.
A single payer system, while not necessarily efficient, at least removes the incomprehensible morass of frequently contradictory rules, regulations, and edicts with which we all need to deal today. Unionization has the virtue of representing, and thus empowering providers in the face of an increasingly powerful and effective control of purchasing power. Insurers, the government, employers, etc. are much more effective in dealing with physicians than the other way around. There are many physicians with whom they can deal, while there are a relative handful of payers. This gives the payers the market power.