Over the last month or two, I’ve broken the rules I’ve made against answering e-mails at length to respond to a Lexington County physician who has been extremely upset about our stance against Lexington Medical Center getting permission to start an open-heart-surgery facility.
What got to him the most was the fact that we got exponentially more down on it when the Lexington advocates — not satisfied to let their appeal of DHEC’s decision run its course — got their delegation to push to change the law under which they had been refused, so as to specifically allow LMC to have its way. He couldn’t see what a rank maneuver this was, or how many principles of sound government (and sound health regulation) this violated.
Anyway, the first thing I thought of when I read our lead story this morning was, "Well, somebody‘s going to be happy today."
As soon as I got to the office, I sent him this e-mail:
Dr. Black:
Didn’t I try to tell you that you had nothing to worry, much less get upset, about? From the moment this issue stepped out of the realm of merit and into the realm of raw politics, you were destined to get your way.
The reason we have regulation by people who are relatively insulated from politics is that they can look at things objectively. Politicians, particularly South Carolina legislators, can’t say "no" to anybody — particularly not to angry people from the most Republican county in the state.
So you can relax now. We won’t give up on this, even though the result is pretty much assured now. It’s not our job to write about what WILL happen, but to write about what SHOULD happen, no matter how unpopular the stand may be among our friends and neighbors. It’s not that much fun sometimes, but it’s what we do.
Have a good day,
Brad Warthen
If y’all show ANY interest in this issue, I’ll post some or all of my correspondence with him. It might be interesting; I don’t know. That’s up to y’all.
Related Posts
In America, it is not supposed to be the business of government bureaucrats or newspaper editors, nor legislators, to tell hospitals who they might treat, and by what means.
If the doctors and hospital want to provide a new service, and it is billed to their patients, that is between them and their patients, and no one else’s busines.
One of the common slogans of those favoring socialist medicine is that the laws of economics don’t apply to medical care, that it is some sort of unique universe of product and services, though they can never explain what the differences are, much less why they think so.
Two ways (with more time I could think of more) in which the “laws of economics” for medicine are a special case: 1. Pricing for medical services is not transparent; 2. People don’t value their lives in the same way they value most consumer goods. Why do I “think so”? Because after having a wife gravely injured in an auto accident, and after five years of handling my mother-in-law’s medical care, I’ve gained a certain amount of useful experience.
I would like to see your correspondence with the physician. Please post.
1. Try to decode the slogan, “Pricing for medical services is not transparent”, into plain English.
2. Police and fire protection were also services hired because people “value their life”. Same for airline pilots, bus drivers, and charter boat captains… and physicians.
Sade, I will try to remember to post my correspondence on Monday (it’s at the office, and I had just gotten home when I saw your comment).
If I forget, please remind me at bwarthen@thestate.com.
BL, Lee just does not get it, does he?
Lee – Quit changing the basis of your arguments. We were talking about health care economics, then you changed to the fact that there are others who are in life-protecting positions. So what! “Transparent pricing” is what you have with businesses like amazon.com, expedia, etc. Item-for-item price comparisons are easy to make. Not so for health care services in a specific area.
Herb – Lee doesn’t care whether he gets it or not. He’s on this blog to talk, not to listen.
Right BL, but I was primarily thinking of your experience with your wife and mother-in-law. That in itself should have brought at least some respect, I would think. Comparing the complexities of medical care for loved ones (and the difficult experience that must have been, or still is)with the fire department strikes me as heartless, quite apart from the logic.
Thanks for telling me how you define “transparent pricing”. A lot of people throw around economic jargon without having a clue about the meaning.
There are a lot of markets where the consumers have to make decisions without as much knowledge as they like, such as buying medical services for the first time in their lives, or a car every 5 years, or a trip to Europe once. Those who care, take time to shop. Those who think someone else is picking up their bill don’t care. Socialism and employer-provided plans fall into the latter category of encouraging ignorance and cavalier attitudes.