Robin Cook on National Healthcare
Dec 4th, 2007 by nick
I recently read one of Robin Cook’s medical thrillers, Marker. The novel itself was entertaining as usual. The most interesting aspect, however, was the author’s note at the end. Here’s what he has to say about a national, single-payer healthcare plan,
As a physician, I have always been against health insurance except for catastrophic care and for those financially unable to pay…
With the power of Genomics and Bioinformatics obviating the pooling of risk within defined groups, I have had to revamp my position, which has resulted in my switching from one extreme to the other. I now feel that there is only one solution to the problem of paying for healthcare in the United States, indeed for all developed countries in this global economy: to pool risk for the entire nation… Although I never thought I’d be advocating this, I now believe that the sooner we as a nation move to a government-sponsored, obviously nonprofit, tax-supported single-payer plan, the better off we will be….
There are other compelling arguments for a national, single-payer plan for healthcare, but to my mind none of them is nearly as persuasive as the developing power of Genomics. But change will not come easily. As Jack Stapleton comments in Marker: “What’s reasonable and what isn’t has little to do with decisions about healthcare in this country… Everything is decided according to vested interests.” Difficulties aside, it is my fervent belief that the sooner we move to such a plan, the better off the country will be. Luckily, we have the experiences of a number of other industrialized countries that have already enacted single-payer systems to learn from.
Dr. Cook’s concern is that for-profit health insurance, based on pooling risk, is no longer valid because risk, and anticipated future medical care costs, can be determined on an individual basis from a person’s genome. Although I already support the idea of a national, single-payer healthcare plan, I find Dr. Cook’s perspective to be an interesting take on the debate.