You totally misinterpret or misunderstood what I was saying.
I have spent 27 in State government (Texas Comptrollers Office) before retiring. The Legislature's give much authority to the State Agencies and Commissions they create to interpret and implement the statutes they pass. The court reviews when law suits are brought (but doesn't always over rule the State Agency). Then again the Legislature doesn't revisit what they've done all the time and straighten out State Agencies decisions, unless a big donor or sufficient constituents claims they were harmed. Many of these Agencies wield great power with little or no Legislative oversight, ongoing Legislative oversight.
You might be right that there is a shortage of providers but here in Austin I really don't see that. The Yellow Pages has dozens of pages of MD's of all stripe and kind. Many are GP's and PCP's in administered health care programs (insurance companies and State mandated) or clinics. Some sections of the country may have shortages, I would not contest that ... and law suits have caused doctors to leave the medical field. How many were GP's I do not know rather than specialists or surgeons.
Many people just don't get health insurance, for a variety of reasons. [See
Five Myths of Health Care (Number (1) specifically)]. Or they go into a hospital, clinic or emergency rooms and get the government to pay for it under care for the poor and indigent. City, County and State budgets have funds for this specific purpose.
The right people would be nice to have ... but this isn't a perfect world. My point is the State have a bureaucracy to manage health care and invariably appointing those who believe in social programs, for health care, running it. Never a conservative or libertarian ... that is a problem in government at every level in this country. The State's also have and a variety of other areas in which Agencies oversee the day-to-day working of them for the State. Politicians (the bulk of them, not all of them) believe they are elected to control and to keep the job for life getting rich and well-known in the process.
A better system is to have the patient and the doctor in charge, with government and lawyers out. Insurance companies must be involved, since not everyone is independently wealth and can afford to pay cash. The insurance companies must surely weigh the risks if they are to provide coverage but should not be the final arbiter (medical professionals here) on what coverage is included or excluded, especially life saving surgeries or treatments.
But we do have a problem in general because many of the lawyers involved are government lawyers ... a double whammy. Couple them with tort lawyers and they have negotiated not only your health care but your future.
I don't think I misunderstood at all what you were saying...I think you misunderstood the main point of the article. Look at the first four sentences:
Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.
Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.
Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.
Clearly the problem is NOT that the right person isn't administering the plan, the problem is that there are too many people requesting healthcare services and not enough healthcare providers to provide those services. We're talking about Massachusetts, not Texas, so your Austin Yellow Pages statistics don't have any bearing on the situation.
Many people just don't get health insurance, for a variety of reasons.
We're talking about Massachusetts...remember? It is mandated that every resident have health insurance - they can't choose not to get it, so I really don't see what point you're trying to make. Your statement isn't relevant to the topic under discussion.
My point is the State have a bureaucracy to manage health care and invariably appointing those who believe in social programs, for health care, running it. Never a conservative or libertarian ... that is a problem in government at every level in this country.
To my original point, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S IN CHARGE IN MASSACHUSETTS! If there aren't enough healthcare providers, there will be a healthcare shortage - period!
A better system is to have the patient and the doctor in charge, with government and lawyers out.
A better system? Once again, we're discussing the law in Massachusetts. Why are you talking about "a better system"? That is not relevant to the discussion.
I'll say it again, given Massachusetts healthcare laws, it doesn't matter who's in charge. It's a bad idea, and anyone with half a brain could have foreseen the shortage they are now experiencing, since it seems to happen everywhere universal coverage is tried.