No, of course they don't need to be protected, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the government should compete against them and pass legislation designed to punish them. Insurance company profits are a convenient scape-goat that allows politicians to ignore the real diverse and complex cost-drivers that can't be explained in nice sound-bites. I don't like the public option, but I actually agree with the President that it should not be the center of the debate. What I don't like even more is that all the debate over the public option and the evil insurance companies has pushed out real debate over how to control costs.

I'm not going to cry for the health insurance companies if they go under, but I will cry if we do all of this reform and find that we haven't succeeded at controlling costs. It will be decades more before any consensus is reached about whether the current reforms have worked and enough political momentum is built up for another change. You can't control costs just by setting the price lower. If you do that and don't address the fundamental supply/demand issues you will create more problems than you will solve.

Exactly. The left is really pushing this “Physicians Love Medicare” meme.

In my career I've talked to several hundred physicians and most of them would not support Medicare for all. Medicare pays less than private insurers (in most areas anyway) and the paperwork is no less burdensome. The one area they are easier to work with is in not requiring pre-authorization of testing and procedures, but this is actually an area they need to improve on since their current lack of oversight invites waste.

I can only assume the doctor in the above article never had to fill out Medicare forms for diabetic testing, diabetic shoes, home oxygen, wheelchairs, scooters, etc, etc.

If you ask 10 physicians in my city whether they prefer BC/BS or Medicare, at least 9 will say BC/BS.

This is exactly the problem. And these politicians are not serving the people, but themselves.