In Retooled Health-Care System, Who Will Set Limits? – washingtonpost.com
The question came from a Colorado neurologist. “Mr. President,” he said at a recent forum, “what can you do to convince the American public that there actually are limits to what we can pay for with our American health-care system? And if there are going to be limits, who . . . is going to enforce the rules for a system like that?”
President Obama called it the “right question” — then failed to answer it. This was not surprising: The query is emerging as the ultimate challenge in reining in health-care costs that now consume $2.5 trillion per year, or 16 percent of the economy. How will tough decisions be made about what to spend money on? In a country where “rationing” is a dirty word, who will say no?
“In a country where “rationing” is a dirty word, who will say no?”. All of you who have been demanding Universal Health Care paid for by tax payers are going to be irate when the government says no to some treatment you need, but it is becoming apparent even to our misguided Congress that rationing will take place.
Some clerk sitting in a tiny cubicle in Washington will look over your medical records that have been entered into the government data base by your doctor and decide if you are worth the treatment. First will be your age, then your other medical conditions and over all health. Say you’re over 65, obese, have high blood pressure and diabetes and need a rotten gall bladder removed. No consideration will be taken of the fact that you are a mother or father and grandparent and loved by your family. No consideration will be given to the fact that you are a regular church goer and volunteer at a local food bank. In fact, no consideration will be given to the fact that you can possibly pay for the operation yourself. The answer will be no because extending your life would be a waste of funds.
What would probably be done however is not to tell you no outright but to put your name on the bottom of the list for treatment with the hope that you will die a natural death before the state has to take any action on your part. Millions of cancer patients die annually in Canada and the European countries due to lack of timely treatment.
Although Obama and his advisers have held up providers’ spending patterns as the crux of the crisis, proposals in Washington go only so far in addressing the thorniest questions about who gets what care.
Instead, cost-saving measures are focused on introducing a public insurance option to compete with private insurers,
How having a tax payer funded “public insurance option” to compete with private insurance will cut cost is beyond me. I am sorry but I simply can not understand what these people are thinking! In my opinion all this tax payer funded “public insurance plan” will do is dry up the availability of private health insurance.
or on general cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals.
Oh yes, this is a certainty! The elderly and the poor will certainly fall into the category of being “unworthy” of treatment to extend their miserable lives. You can also add children in this group of the unworthy because children you see are not voters!
And then there is the “back to the HMO” advocates, but they don’t call it HMO’s because HMO’s got a bad reputation. The clinic of the group of doctors gets a set fee for taking care of you. You see what ever doctor is in when you need a appointment and each doctor is well aware of the more money spent on your treatment the less money the clinic keeps and can use to pay the doctors. Some incentive that!
Massachusetts, which has achieved near-universal health coverage but is struggling with high costs, is considering major changes in this direction. A legislative commission is about to release a report recommending that the state goad providers into joining networks that would receive payments for each enrollee, rather than for each procedure delivered.
I have had experience with this and believe me it is bad. The clinics are forced to take on too many patients to cover their costs and make a reasonable profit for doctors salaries so time is important and 10- 15 minutes for each patient is the top limit. Time enough for the doctor to write a prescription of some kind but certainly not time enough to hear and evaluate symptoms to diagnose the problem. This type of group clinics are bad for the patient and extremely upsetting to the doctors who are not giving their best and are aware of it so there is always a big turn over of doctors.
Now that the Congress is finally debating some of the problems with Universal Health Care Americans had better pay attention and reevaluate their wants and needs. BB
