Glenn Reynolds presents the usual conservative hysteria against health care reform. He brings up the usual nonsense lines that reform will bring about “socialized medicine” as he writes about the benefits of modern health care while ignoring the problem that our system denies such care to tens of millions. He ignores the frustration of those of us who practice medicine who realize how far we are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in so many ways.
As I’ve stated many times in the past, you can tell that an article on health care reform is not worth reading when they bring up scare stories about Great Britain as a government run system of this type is not on the table here. The British system is opposed by virtually all supporters of health care reform. His arguments against “socialized medicine” and the British system may or may not be true, but they have no relevance with regards to the current health care debate. Those who rely on scare stories about “socialized medicine” are just avoiding a discussion of the real issues under consideration.
Of particular absurdity is his argument against preventive medicine because of examples where receiving preventive medicine might not have mattered. This has no bearing on the many cases we see of people who do die because they did not receive routine preventive medicine, or did not have coverage for routine treatment of chronic medical diseases.
I had seen this op-ed as not being worth any time commenting on after writing about the absurdity of equating health care reform with socialized medicine so many times in the past. Then I reached the last paragraph:
It’s ironic that the same Democrats who were pushing the medical prospects for stem-cell research during the last election are now pushing a program that will make such progress far less likely.
While the right claims that it is health care reform which will limit health care, this shows just one example how it has really been Democrats who in many ways have been pushing to expand health care choices and reduce interference from restrictive government regulations. Besides stem-cell research, we have also seen this as conservatives have tried to limit or ban abortion and birth control, and their interference in end of life decisions such as with Terri Schiavo.
Reynolds, with his hysteria about “socialized medicine” and lack of understanding of the harm caused by corporate medicine and practices of the insurance industry, sees irony in Democratic support for eliminating the restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research. While his view that health care reform will make such progress any less likely are based upon his irrational views on the health care system, perhaps at least some readers will see his conclusion and question which side is really the one which is responsible for reducing health care choices in this country.