Yes, it is. Since 60 percent of American health care is government funded, one way or another, and that's the part most inefficient and in need of reform, I don't see how MORE government control will help.

During my early marriage, before all this government spending for health care, care was much more affordable. You could save up money to have a baby, for example. If you needed to go to the doctor for small things, you went to your local general practioner, who usually knew your family and situation and could take care of most things in office. Paperwork was at a minimum, there was no huge expense for large office staff, either. If you had something more serious, you could by-pass the GP and go straight to a specialist. Or if your GP encovered something beyond his expertise, he sent you on--once!

Now, I have the expense of going to my "primary care" doctor even for return visits to the specialist and she operates more like a clearing house to send me on--with the charge of an office visit everytime I need a specialist. Prescriptions are controlled by non-medical outsiders, too.

Many of the inefficiencies of the current health care system stem from government mandates, the refusal to pass tort reform, and the need to comply file and refile reams of paper to get anything paid by a bureaucracy that exists mainly to comply with other government mandates.

More government mandates will only make things worse. Much worse. And vastly more expensive. And, inevitably drive private health insurers out of business, leaving ONLY a government option.

And, a large number of health care providers will simply change careers or retire early rather than sacrifice their freedom and income to become uncaring cogs in a government run health care rationing bureaucracy.

First, do no harm.

Then, physician, heal thyself, but keep your fingers out of my health care!

Thank you to all the caring medical professionals who help us all. May you never be shackled to the Obama plan!

"In effect, the system pays doctors to harm patients," he said. "Main Street commerce and markets do not have these kinds of perverse financial incentives."

He calls those with opposing ideal "intellectually dishonest" and then goes and throws this one out there?

Doctor, have you ever heard of Malpractice? The system encourages doctors to do whatever it takes to avoid any appearance of doing something that could be construed as hurting a patient.

For once a doctor looking at the reality of what our health care has become, inefficient and incompetent because of government interference and the IHC's.

There is good reason for malpractice increasing in the past years, doctors are restricted in diagnosing and treating patients to the point that serious repercussions result. Because proper treatment is not authorized by insurance and government plans, many doctors and patients have their hands tied by legislation and corruption.

I liked his reference to health care needs as a commodity with inefficient care where profit is what determines care.

Reform should be in how insurance is applied and its responsibility to patients and their well being. It did astounds me that 60% of health care is on government backed programs. It's no wonder that large corporate medicine is in favor of this reform Obama proposes. Why settle for 60% of the money government spends when you can up it to 80% or more. Does anyone think the Obama plan will work now? Health care is a commodity now and treatment is restricted.

Jarvis' own arguments are contradictory. He argues that single-payer will reduce costs and improve results. But single-payer (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, CHIP) are a larger share of medical expenditures than they ever were, but costs continue to increase.

OK, this guy just laid out a fundamental fact about medical services, a fundamental fact that I for one had never recognized or considered. I am convinced he is right about this: the medical sector does not, cannot, and will not respond like a "free market."

His argument is simple, clear, and important.

He just sent me back to ground zero about some of my assumptions and beliefs about what we need to do about this mess.

We need to hear more from those inside the medical insurance debate. Thanks for this insightful piece.
I would like to see articles on tort reform, handling the needs of illegal aliens, and how to put people more in touch with the realities of their own health-care decision-making.
Example: A 19-yr-old expectant mother went to the emergency room because of chest pain. For a bill of $1500, she was given antacids for heartburn, a common condition in the last stages of pregnancy. She was just a frightened teenager--a first-time mother--not here legally, but brought here by her parents. Surely we can find a way to help those without insurance in a way that makes more sense!

@Anonymous | 8:40 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009:

reread the article and rethink what you're saying. I don't think you understood what was being said. Jarvis said 60% of medical expenses are government-backed; he then said costs are rising due to the way we handle healthcare. You incorrectly connected the two points.

Dr. Jarvis revealed the stark reality of health care. Reform will only play on the fringes while politicians take credir for doing something. Too much money is opposing health reform (insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc.) to ever have meaningful reform, although they are playing under the guise of coorperating. Why should they give up the millions they make each year, even as a non-profit organization?

If you are a provider working for, let's say, IHC, they place a production quota(RVU) on providers. So, providers see the patients and order the tests that will help match that arbitrary number placed on them. And the numbers just keep rising every year. Why? Because it's a business, like other businesses, that must make a profit to survive, or thrive, as is the case with IHC. If big government gets their way under a one-payor system, their job will be to limit expenses, at someone's expense. To better help our health care cost woes, I'd like to see big Pharma cut ties with the AMA, and go back to a fee-for-service system like it use to be. This would only encourage people to take better care of themselves, which is the best health care available anyway. Just think about how health care costs would decline. But that's too simple.

People run to the doctor way too often, for every sniffle and cough, things we use to just stay home for and use simple home remedies, until we got better. And, shame on the AMA for the approach they take treating degeneratives diseases that cost billions and benefit little.