What if a doctor knowingly rejected a proven cure despite years of successful tests among diverse nations, a cost that is just half of the existing treatment and is hugely popular among patients who have experienced it?This piece could be applied word for word in Colorado, regarding the 208 Commission and Health Care for All Colorado's proposal here:
Wouldn't that be a shameful lapse in medical ethics?
If so, how will we label those state legislators who appear afraid to seriously consider the Health Security Plan model of "an expanded and improved Medicare for all"? If legislators won't thoroughly debate a proven answer for our health crisis, wouldn't that be a cowardly case of "legislative malpractice"?
The Wisconsin [Colorado] proposal would make three key differences in our system:Sadly, the first comment in response to this is incredibly ignorant. Insurance propagandists can pat themselves on the back for this one. Purplepenguin writes: "People are already using our current insurance-system to call out for bans on doughnuts & smoking. If this sort of thing is passed, that will only get worse..... Sorry...as good as it sounds, it's not worth the trade-off in freedoms."
1. A publicly accountable body would replace the rapacious "middleman" insurers in collecting revenues and paying benefits, thereby shrinking the enormous costs of insurance bureaucracy.
2. Citizens, not an HMO, would have the right to choose their doctor and their hospital. (Both doctors' practices and hospitals would remain in private hands.)
3. Every citizen of Wisconsin would have health care coverage.
Right. Just like smoking and pastries have been banned in all the countries now offering their citizens single-payer, universal healthcare. Right.