I would like to address a few points in this article;
First on my list is this erroneous statement - "The government’s global budget also determines what compensation all of the doctors, dentists, nurses, hospitals and nursing homes will receive. Rather than raise taxes, the mega-system continually cuts compensation to the medical providers, who are forced to reduce quality and increase waiting times in the hope that costly patients will go away."
The author of this article obviously has not read HR 676. Under HR 676, the Single Payer bill currently in the house with over 80 signators, compensation for a given treatment or procedure will be determined by averaging the usual and customary fees for said procedure across a specific area. These rates will, very likely, be higher than what Medicare currently pays. But since the waste from For-Profit-Insurance-Companies will no longer exist we will have no problem covering these rates.
Second statement to be addressed is - "Since doctors are dropping out of Medicare because it increasingly underpays them, the single-payer system will necessarily require them to participate for what the government is willing to pay them. Of course, unlike hospitals facing the same problem, they can always move out of state."
Again, the author is not taking into account the aspect of HR 676 that I have already explained. The reimbursment rates will be higher, and rational. As for doctors choosing not to take Medicare, that is only true under the current system. Under Medicare for all doctors would not feel the need to drop out. For more information about what doctors are saying about Single Payer go to www.PNHP.org
Thirdly - "...consumers do better when there is choice and competition."
Here I must point out that consumers do not have a choice now. All they have a choice of is which over priced system do they choose to be ripped off from, or not participate at all. Given the choice between having insurance that is inadequate or paying a fine, I'll pay the fine.
It should be noted too, that the ability to fine a person for NOT buying a product is now working its way through the courts and may be found to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the wording in the healthcare bill had read - Those who choose not to buy healthcare insurance from a for-profit-insurance-company will be Taxed (and said taxes will be utilized for healthcare services for all those who choose not to pay the robber baron insurance thieves) then the constitutionality question would not have been risen. The federal government has the ability to tax and regulate comerce, but not to fine someone for NOT buying something.
Support Single Payer in your state and HR 676 nationally.