If you want to receive future articles, please click on SUBSCRIBE.
We all heard President Obama promise that if we like our healthcare policy, we can keep our healthcare policy; if we like our doctors, we can keep our doctors, and our family medical premiums will decrease by $2,500 annually. These promises were all lies.
And they’re still lying to us. The exchange websites don’t work because it doesn't matter; the end goal, as Harry Reid admitted, is single payer, meaning a government run program.
Dr. Ben Carson, the former director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University and Hospital, drew a parallel between Obamacare and “socialized medicine” and cited Communist leader Vladimir Lenin’s support for government-run health care as the “keystone to the establishment of a socialist state.”
So why are they lying?
In the Wall Street Journal article dated August 27, 2009, writer Betsy McCaughey, profiled Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Healthcare Adviser and his thoughts about healthcare. She indicated that Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care and is in favor of rationing healthcare. Let’s look at that again. The White House advisor for Obamacare views it as rationed care.
That’s right, rationing….see, if Obama and his administration told Americans they were transitioning their healthcare from private insurance to rationing, would Americans go along? Of course not, so they had to lie.
Dr. Emanuel, brother of ex-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.
As a bioethicist, Emanuel has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
Dr. Emanuel believes in a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources. The “complete lives system” is based on age and how productive the person will be to benefit the state. The chance of a patient receiving treatment or a procedure increases if that patient is between the ages of 15 and 50. The only patients receiving treatment will be the ones fitting into the proper age group, the ones who are “just right.”
This gives preference to teenagers and young adults over infants. The whole idea behind this is that infants have not received education and parental care like their teenage counterparts. These factors are actually looked upon as investments by the state — investments that will be wasted unless the older patients can “complete” their lives.
If this is sounding like Russia, you’re right…
If a small child is diagnosed with a disease requiring expensive treatment, he or she may be denied care because there is no guarantee the treatment will ensure a “complete life.” Dr. Emanuel supports this argument by referring to a survey in which people agreed it is terrible when an infant dies, but it is worse when we lose an adolescent. Still, a poor teenager will be given the same care as a wealthy teenager even though there may be an imbalance in the investment in education and parental care between the two. This is where social justice will weigh in.
Likewise, an active Vietnam veteran may be denied a needed procedure because his “complete life” is almost over and any treatment will be deemed a poor investment by the government. Whether or not this will hold true for members of Congress and other elected officials remains to be seen.
Making decisions for physicians, yes I said FOR physicians, will be the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), correctly referred to by Sarah Palin as the Death Panels. It is a group of people appointed by the president to determine what services will be made available to Medicare patients. As ominous as that sounds, the board’s duty is somewhat restricted monetarily in the Affordable Care Act.
The board’s real goal is to guarantee there will be no increase in Medicare spending. With the increasing number of baby boomers expected on the Medicare rolls in the coming years, this is going to be a formidable task.
The Affordable Care Act also guarantees there will be no formal rationing of health care. The only way spending can be curbed without rationing is to limit how much money will be authorized for the care. If the money is not available, the care cannot be provided. So, of course, it is rationing.
Welcome to Change!