Patient-based Health Reform or "Fannie Med?"

Set against the backdrop of the $787 billion stimulus bill and deficit spending that dwarfs the federal outlays of FDR's New Deal and LBJ’s “Great Society,” the idea of spending hundreds of billions - or even trillions of tax dollars - to buy universal health care coverage for all Americans isn't much of a stretch anymore.

Faced with $30 to $80 trillion in unfunded healthcare liabilities ($110,000 to $300,000 per American under the age of 65) “health care reform” discussions are underway between President Obama and members of Congress in the 111th Congress to spend even more on health care, and Americans are beginning to hear more and more about "patients’ rights" and similar jargon.

The problem is that “universal health care” and “patients’ rights,” while sounding harmonious, are in direct conflict. The path to effective health care reform must be approached from the perspective of individual patients and their relationship with their doctors, and not from a top-down, big government perspective. Anything that interferes with an individual’s freedom to consult their doctor of choice to make health care decisions defeats the purpose of meaningful health care reform.

True health care reform centers on four "pillars" of Patient's Rights: