Featured Post

Is the new professionalism and ACP's new ethics really just about following guidelines?

The Charter ( Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium.A Physician's Charter) did not deal with just the important relationship of ...

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Does The American College of Physicians see everything through the lens of the progressive mind set?

Arnold Kling' useful framework of describing how libertarians,conservatives and progressives see the world is thoughtful and has more than a little predictive value.The progressive's lens is shaped  to see things in terms of the oppressed and the oppressor while the libertarian tends to see things in terms of freedom and coercion and the conservative sees the world often in terms of the civilization and barbarism.He calls this notion the Three Axis Model and is available on Amazon  in an inexpensive Kindle format.

Applying this to the issue of concierge  or retainer model of medical practice ( also known as Direct Paitent Care Plan or DPCP) the recent response of the ACP ( see here) fits well with the progressive view which I claim is their default analysis for many issues.

(Mr Bob Dohrty , who is the senior VP of government affairs and public policy of the ACP, inexplicably has denied my claim that their policies are progressive. See here.)

In regard to concierge practice or DPCP, ACP said in part " it must be recognized that DPCPS potentially exacerbate racial,ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in  health care and impose too high cost on some lower income patients".

The progressive view sees things in terms of the oppressor-oppressed model and often uses a defining metric of  inequality along some  or other parameter. IMHO It seems that ACP thinks  most everything about medical care is all about social justice.

1 comment:

Walter Bond said...

The answer to your question? Yes, naturally. The conclusions are in the assumptions.

Mr. Doherty's response to you is amusing.

The level of self-awareness present in the argument linked to above is also seen when you pointed out to him that he was opining on a non-govt issue when in the immediately preceding post he had explained that he could not comment on the ABIM scandal (in reply to a comment from me) in that it was not directly related to his role as a lobbyist on govt issues!