Government Bureaucrat or Insurance Profiteer?

I find myself both perplexed and laughing at the latest GOP commercials on health care in my area. The big push shows a bureaucrat between a doctor and patient denying coverage. Without much being run for ads against it in Texas, it isn't surprising that the push in Texas seems to support opposing it. Yet, one has to wonder where the commercial or discussion is about that insurance company between a doctor and their patient.

No matter which way the health care debate goes, there is going to be someone between you and your doctor. That is inevitable in 99% of all cases. To illustrate, my brother-in-law has had a mass found in his brain. The doctors think it may have spread there from somewhere else and the insurance company balked at a spinal MRI, and are still disagreeing with its necessity after the fact even though it showed a mass in his spine. The doctors think that may have spread from elsewhere, but the insurance company is balking at doing an MRI on the rest of the body to find out the full story because it is expensive. My brother-in-law's doctor's need for the tests to get a full picture of what is going on appears to be secondary to the insurance company's profits.

It serves to illustrate the key point, someone is always between the doctor and the patient. The question really should be do you want a private person who is only responsible to their boss who is only responsible to a board seeking dividend payouts that come from profit margins; or should it be a person who is responsible to the people you vote for every 2, 4, and 6 years?

Given the difference in health care treatment that my father gets on his federal government health care in contrast to what my brother-in-law's private insurance company, I am both strongly in favor of the federal bureaucrat and his federal rules, and grateful that my health has been good enough to not have to test the system personally.