With all the opinions and spin bombarding the bewildered public,
it is difficult to separate the pragmatic approach to health-care
reform from the dogmas of conflicting ideologies.
There are no doubt those who want private service and
can afford it. That is not the case with the
vast majority. Federal politicians plead for co-operation, not finger pointing.
Some suspect that co-operation means "we do what we want
and you don't complain."
One aspect that stands out is the continued and, no
doubt, purposeful misinterpretation of private participation. Socialist brainwashers argue that
private suppliers of health care are evil and should be
illegal, even though almost 100 per cent of doctors are
private suppliers to a single payer system.
For example, even if a qualified supplier were willing to
risk investing in an MRI clinic, feeling he could make
a profit by contracting services to the health-care system, he'd
be subject to the standards and billing procedures of the
system. If he conformed to procedures for doctors and specialized
clinics, what could be the objection?
Misrepresenting this as "American style" is not only dishonest but
damaging to the prospects of success. Are critics suggesting that,
after investing big bucks for facilities the government would not
have to buy, the investor should not be compensated for
his services? Or is it the lust for control and
regulation so dear to socialists?