Health Care Rationing
Updated (AGAIN) and moved to the top ...
More emails from Doctors to Hugh Hewitt. READ THEM.
From Protein Wisdom, another link today to a story out of the UK. A famous actress, Jade Goody, was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was diagnosed late because the NHS only begins pap screens at the age of 25. I read that and went, say what?!?!? Here, in this country, it is recommended that young girls begin having their annual exams when they become sexually active (the legal age is 16 in the UK!), and 21 at the latest.
It sort of blows my mind that this woman died (on March 22 of this year). Cervical cancer is one of the most treatable ... with proper detection. No wonder the UK was all gaga over Cervarix, they thought it would save them money in screenings. Though that attitude is quickly changing as more and more women are reporting paralysis, seizures, fatigues, and muscle aches. The UK gave the vaccine to every 11 year old girl. Every time I read something about this I want to print it out and send it to my old doctor.
But Jade Goody's story only made headlines because she was on Big Brother. How many other woman have suffered because the NHS is ... well is trying to save money by not covering what it obviously deems are needless tests for the rest of a woman's natural life? And even when they do recommend them, they recommend them only once every 3 years.
Um, hello? That's insane. Here, you get one every year. And if something comes back funny, you go every 3 months. This isn't an expensive test. It costs maybe $100. I know, I had to pay for two out of pocket when I didn't have insurance.
Read the whole thing over at Protein Wisdom. It also talks about the cervical cancer mortality rate in UK (double ours).
And contrary to comments below ... I like to think that my brother in law and I get along very well! Just not on this one issue. And others. :)
Hugh Hewitt had an article yesterday on Health Care.
Even Democrats should be scared when a President says things like this:
But after he says things like that, can you honestly believe that he won't agree to some semblence of rationing? My grandmother is 89 years old. Would he think it appropriate for her have knee replacement surgery? Would he think it appropriate for her to have a heart catheter put in? A pace maker? I mean, she's 89, he would surely see that as a long life and therefore no longer in need of medical care.
Come on people ... tell me what he's talking about if not the rationing of care to the detriment of my grandmother (and yours)?
More emails from Doctors to Hugh Hewitt. READ THEM.
From Protein Wisdom, another link today to a story out of the UK. A famous actress, Jade Goody, was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was diagnosed late because the NHS only begins pap screens at the age of 25. I read that and went, say what?!?!? Here, in this country, it is recommended that young girls begin having their annual exams when they become sexually active (the legal age is 16 in the UK!), and 21 at the latest.
It sort of blows my mind that this woman died (on March 22 of this year). Cervical cancer is one of the most treatable ... with proper detection. No wonder the UK was all gaga over Cervarix, they thought it would save them money in screenings. Though that attitude is quickly changing as more and more women are reporting paralysis, seizures, fatigues, and muscle aches. The UK gave the vaccine to every 11 year old girl. Every time I read something about this I want to print it out and send it to my old doctor.
But Jade Goody's story only made headlines because she was on Big Brother. How many other woman have suffered because the NHS is ... well is trying to save money by not covering what it obviously deems are needless tests for the rest of a woman's natural life? And even when they do recommend them, they recommend them only once every 3 years.
Um, hello? That's insane. Here, you get one every year. And if something comes back funny, you go every 3 months. This isn't an expensive test. It costs maybe $100. I know, I had to pay for two out of pocket when I didn't have insurance.
Read the whole thing over at Protein Wisdom. It also talks about the cervical cancer mortality rate in UK (double ours).
~~~
Hugh Hewitt has an email he received from a doctor that makes a very good point. We're currently under going a doctor shortage and how will that weigh into this new reform?And contrary to comments below ... I like to think that my brother in law and I get along very well! Just not on this one issue. And others. :)
~~~
Hugh Hewitt had an article yesterday on Health Care.
Almost anyone familiar with the push for what is euphemistically called “health care reform” knows that many experts on the left believe that far too many dollars are spent on providing health care to people in the final weeks or months of their earthly lives. If controls can be placed on these expenditures, then more of the government’s resources will be available for younger and much healthier people.The article goes on to talk of others that may be victims of rationing of health care; the disabled, smokers, the obese, those with too many children.
Thus, rationing’s first target is going to be the expensive demands made by the elderly. The new system will simply scoff at the idea of a liver transplant for anyone over the age of 65. Or 60. Or maybe even 55. Liver transplants are expensive.
Even Democrats should be scared when a President says things like this:
"There's always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider," he said. "And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."The government idiots that run bankrupt programs like Social Security have no business telling me what medical treatments I need or want. I'll trust the person with the medical degree, thank you very much.
But after he says things like that, can you honestly believe that he won't agree to some semblence of rationing? My grandmother is 89 years old. Would he think it appropriate for her have knee replacement surgery? Would he think it appropriate for her to have a heart catheter put in? A pace maker? I mean, she's 89, he would surely see that as a long life and therefore no longer in need of medical care.
I'm going to be sick.
It's a scary picture the president paints. He stated that "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." For them, he said, "I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."
Come on people ... tell me what he's talking about if not the rationing of care to the detriment of my grandmother (and yours)?
Comments
I had the CEO of our local and only hospital say he at one time was ready to deny tricare because of poor reinbursement. Ask any provider, Tricare pays months too late and will not reinburse even what medicare pays. This has been an ongoing problem regardless of what administration is in office.
I do however feel that those in office will never allow their health care to be on par with the rest of the country. Especially those in the military.
Just a thought from this crazy guy.
There will be those that think this is OK until their parent can not get the MRI or the hip replacement for months or years as it is in Canada or Britain, or they have that premature baby that is in need of major assistance to live.
This kind of policy (politics) is easy until it becomes personal.
From the President's own mouth he talks about rationing.
What are your thoughts on that?
First, a five year old study is not pointless, unless any of the above countries have had huge shifts in medical treatments (which I don't know of).
Second, if you believe that rationing doesn't exist now you are fooling yourself, it is however "free-market" rationing in which the poor to middle class cannot afford to get the treatment necessary for their families. You could take me for example as someone who is paying for their own insurance. If I had to go in for a slew of medical issues (cancer, heart problems, etc.) I may be able to get treatment, however upon my exiting of the hospital, I would be so far in debt that I could never pay it all. If I was made 5-10 grand less, forget about even having the treatment.
Third, when the president states that doctors, scientists, and ethicists have to get together to discuss what is and is not right I think he is gathering the right group of people together.
Fourth, the "honest broker" comment is disturbing, though I refuse to run around freaking out as he could have meant, that he believes that the government will have the ability to reduce the costs of expensive medical procedures.
In any event, who knows what is going to happen, but I would like to see the actual discussion take place with the actual framework designed. It is crazy to run around screaming Socialism when nothing concrete has been done yet.
What we're talking about is people above a certain age (or with certain conditions) that would be DENIED treatment because they are that age. Not because of failure to pay.
A "one-party system" as is the new buzz word for socialized medicine is being debated, written into a bill as we speak. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090505-714331.html
It's not a distant reality. They are trying to get a bill infront of the President before the fall break. With Congress debating / voting in July.
I am all about health care reform. But the problem isn't with my insurance. Even if they go to a part government / part free market, with the poor people being on the government stuff and the "rich" people being on the free market stuff, you're going to have the same issues that we have today. Those without will complain about what the others have and why can't they have it? And the government coverage will raise the costs of the free market coverage, just as happened with Medicaid and Medicare, and we'll be right back here in a few years.
And then, in an effort of fairness, they'll force us all onto the government plan, and they will have to ration the health care as they - the government - deem fit.
And then I guess all will be right with the world.
Except for me. And those like me.
Socialized medicine has the potential to head toward rationing, though I would still argue that is not a necessary byproduct of socialized medicine. Likewise, socialized medicine could lead toward eugenics, infanticide, and the killing of the aged and infirm. However, I don't see that happening in America, nor do I see any rationing.
They aren't related ... but I'm just saying. We have the most pro-abortion (I know that's not a fair term but it is what it is) President in the history of the country ... I have little faith that my mother is not right and that premies would suffer from a single payer system.
I would argue that it is, but I am in a line of work where insurance isn't provided by my employer, and I spend a ton of money to be insured only to pay a ton of money to doctors, labs, and pharmacies... We are all victims of what we know, and we all struggle to "empathize" with those above us or below us economically.