Many people are concerned about President Obama’s plans to reform our health care system. The people who are concerned obviously have doubts about President Obama’s promises that his reforms will both reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care. They also don’t believe President Obama when he says his reforms will not lead to rationing of health care or the denial of health care benefits to the elderly.
Some of those who are concerned about President Obama’s health care reforms are expressing their concerns—and in some cases their anger—by attending town hall meetings held by their Congressmen. During the last week, the news media reported numerous incidents of rowdy crowds expressing their concern and frustration about President Obama’s health care proposals to the few members of Congress who were brave enough to hold town hall meetings in their districts. In their normal fashion, the Democrats have unleashed the attack dogs on those who disagree with them and are encouraging other Democrats to cancel any town hall meetings previously planned for the future.
While some are protesting, others are quietly attempting to protect themselves from what they view as the inevitable result of President Obama’s health care proposals. A doctor who is a friend of mine shared with me a letter he received last week from one of his patients. I don’t know who wrote the letter, and I am not going to reveal the name of the doctor who received it. Here is what the letter said:
“Dear Dr. _______________:
“I would be pleased if you were to respond at your leisure to the following hypothetical.
“My hip replacement prostheses are now 12 years old. I anticipate that they will need replacement in five or ten years. In five years, I shall be 77 years of age. Health reform now before Congress suggests that hip replacements may be rationed for the elderly. I suppose that in five years I shall be classified as such. Even if healthcare does not pass, I expect Medicare in the future to compensate certain procedures for the elderly at low levels unacceptable to most doctors.
“I wish to propose a contract between doctor and patient in which the doctor commits to providing a procedure five years hence or thereafter in return for a remuneration based upon today’s cost adjusted for time. The patient would contribute monthly to an account that in five years with interest would cover today’s cost of surgery adjusted by some index—say the medical component of the Consumer Price Index. The contract would remain in force even if the surgery were unnecessary in that fifth year. The patient would continue payments based upon the annual change in cost. If surgery never becomes necessary due to death or some other mitigating circumstance, the doctor would receive a surrender charge as compensation for his commitment.
“I see the contract as being important if for some reason our government decides that procedures outside designated government coverage become illegal. Perhaps, I am being generous in saying the government would not cancel a contract retroactively. The contract ensures that the patient will receive needed surgery; the doctor benefits by ensuring a fee that may not be obtainable in a government-run healthcare system.
“A similar contract might be presented to a hospital.
“I submit this letter seeking an opinion for my own benefit, but inquiring whether or not other persons in the same situation as I might benefit also.” Respectively, Name Confidential
During the last week, another friend of mine who has spent his entire career in the medical industry shared with me an e-mail he received from a well-known orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon distributed his e-mail to some of his friends in the industry. The surgeon said he had personally reviewed the latest version of the health care reforms supported by President Obama. The following are excerpts from the e-mail written by the surgeon:
“The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care… The plan’s method is the most inhumane and unethical approach in cutting costs….[I]f you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer….dream on if you think you will get treated….pick out your box. Oh you say…this could never happen….sorry…this is the same model they use in Britain.
“Not to worry, according to the plan, there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available….why? The plan also creates The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. This illustrious Council’s purpose is ‘to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs.’ How special is that!!
“The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator for Health Information and Technology. This ‘coordinator’ will ‘monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate.’ It goes on to say, ‘Doctors and hospitals not adhering to the guidelines will face penalties.’ According to those in Congress penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment. So according to the Obama Plan….if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow-up appointments.
“Finally, on page 16 of the plan….it is ILLEGAL for a citizen to have private insurance if they lose their job, change their job, become a senior citizen or graduate from college and land their first job…yes…illegal. When President Obama was asked about this portion of the play yesterday his response was…’I am not familiar with that part of the plan.’ Don’t believe me…take a look.”
I realize, of course, that President Obama denies his health care reforms will have the drastic consequences summarized in the orthopedic surgeon’s e-mail. It is becoming increasingly clear that a lot of misinformation is being spread during the course of the debate about the proposed health care reforms. In order to determine the facts, I decided to review the bill now pending in Congress under the title “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” After scanning the bill for an hour or so, I got frustrated and gave up. The bill is 1,018 pages in length and is extremely complex and confusing. I don’t have the time or the patience to analyze the bill line by line. It would take weeks—probably months—for me to understand the bill and all of its implications. I can only guarantee one thing: there is not a single member of Congress who has read and understands the bill. Moreover, I am confident President Obama has not read the bill, and I am sure he does not understand all of its implications. If you would like to review the bill, be my guest. Here is a link that will take you to it:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
It all boils down to this: do you believe President Obama and members of Congress are capable of passing legislation that will reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care without resulting in the rationing of health care or in the denial of health care benefits? If you are willing to place your trust—and possibly your life—in the hands of our government, then God bless you. I wish you all the best.
Posts
3 comments:
I think the Democrats that are in power are so desperate to pass health care reform that they are willing to pass just about anything just to say they "passed" reform.
I was talk with a doctor I was working for the other day and he was talking about the bill. He said, "How come we need such drastic reform for something that works for 95% of the citizens of this country?" His point being that some Congress members act as if health care does not work for some 15+% people in this country. The key point being people, not citizens.
I know we are supposed to be a merciful country and the land of the free, but when will Congress start to look at the implications their decisions have on the tax paying citizens of the country and not just "people" who live here?
Why is so little attention given to the constitutional limitations supposedly put on the federal government when considering the healthcare legislation? Did something happen at some point in the past that made the politicians think they can just ignore the constitution?
I think the people who wrote the constitution were aware of the problems of government involvement in things that are not spelled out in the constitution.
A lot of the questions being raised about the planned new healthcare system in this country may very well have been amoung those problems.
Shouldn't such drastic fundamental changes to out government and economy require a constitutional amendment?
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
I would encourage all of Wildcat's readers to check out the above link from Fact Check regarding many of the issues that Wildcat cites on this blog.
This is a particularly difficult topic and having the facts and perspectives certainly allows our thinking to be clear in finding a workable solution to an incredibly expensive and highly personal part of our lives.
As a small business owner with nine employees, I can tell you that our Medical Insurance costs have skyrocketed during the past ten years. 10%, 14%, 20% annual increases with low levels of usage have been standard during this period of time. Family coverage for a healthy 42 year old with wife, 2 kids and $1500 deductible has risen to $9,000 per year. A couple in their mid-50's, also in good health is in this same range. These are well over double from ten years ago.
I have to submit that people who are "currently happy" with their current plans should re-examine their degree of contentment with these growing outlays. Someone is picking up this incremental cost. And I can assure you that it is factored into the "take-home pay" of the individual employee.
In my own mind, I see the government's involvement in this issue as being the equivalent to the role it has historically played in setting clean air and water standards; planing and building an interstate highway system and space program; ensuring equal rights for all citizens; or establishing institutional regulations for airline safety or financial integrity. This is the role of an effective government in a democracy.
I firmly believe that if the various points of view from all parties were channeled into finding solutions versus finding political leverage, we would be able to establish an effective plan for delivering desired levels of care at affordable and sustainable costs.
We really do not have a choice. The rising costs of medical security for individuals must be addressed as surely as if a sink-hole were in our yards threatening to consume our homes and families. At some point in the future, we will be totally consumed with no viable recourse other than to run for our lives.
Post a Comment