The problems with progressive healthcare reform are just too many to discuss at once. The injustice of universal care at the expense of the successful, or the government's precedent of failure in running federal programs, or even the economic byproducts of this scary experiment are all very daunting issues, but one emerging problem should be enough to make Americans realize that socialized medicine is a bad, bad mistake.
Old Plans, New Resolutions
Rationing has always been in the back of the President's mind whenever he speaks of his plans for healthcare reform. Back in June, President Obama hinted at what will happen under his administration when he said would deny a woman the right to a pacemaker merely because it is too expensive. Instead, Obama suggests giving old ladies painkillers -- a mediocre and unfitting shortcut around heart arrhythmia.
This horrifying condition makes the heart beat irregularly, causing extreme discomfort, pain, a serious risk of systemic and organ failure, hypoxia, and heart attack. Anyone with the condition is familiar with the frightening, sudden changes that may lead to uncontrollable agony, panic attacks, concussions, and a strangling sensation. A $30k pacemaker would solve the problem, but since the patients are usually "too old" and the procedure "too expensive," Obama would prescribe cheap painkillers, so they can bear the pain as they go home to die slowly.
It seems like people with certain conditions and in certain age groups will be marginalized and excluded from Obama's famous "universal healthcare." More recently, the issue has segregated not old cardiac patients, but young females at risk of breast cancer.
Mammograms
"Don't get your mammograms until you're 50" is the new piece of advice coming from the national government. The new "guideline," designed to restrict Americans' freedom to choose for the sake of a "more fair distribution" in healthcare, is how rationing begins. "This is what we warned you about," said Representative Marsha Blackburn this Wednesday. In her words, this government recommendation is "the little toe in the edge of the water" that will eventually drown Americans across this country in rationalized health.
The government is sending out clear signals: if the feds could do it, they certainly would restrict care. If the bill passes in the Senate, we will be one step closer to government mandates that regulate every aspect of American health. The American Cancer Society frowns at the idea:
Our experts make this recommendation [for screening beginning at age 40] having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider...The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. ...With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them.
There are many healthy young women who work hard, save money for medical emergencies, and take care of themselves by practicing healthy habits. These women should have the right to use their money to get screenings from qualified physicians. They have the right to have peace of mind or, if the worst happens, start treatment as early as possible. But national bureaucracy is creeping in between the doctor and the patient, and the result is paramount unjust. The ugly decline in healthcare quality will cause many women to die who would otherwise have had a chance. If this is not a death panel, then I don't know what is.
Outside Looking In?
If the US keeps going this direction, this nation will end up with the same sad fate of Western Europe. Science and technology become irrelevant when drugs start being turned down by the failing government. In the UK, thousands will die every year of liver cancer, and the pharmaceutical just developed to help with the prognosis will not be available because it is too expensive; the government just cannot afford it.
The government is offering to tax the citizens, collect all the money, make decisions based on death panels, exclude certain groups of patients, and then be the "provider" of healthcare. Even then, it might not afford the right medicine, so even more people will end up dying because of this government-expansion blunder. In the process of regulating healthcare, the feds will limit the doctors' informed decisions, which will in turn lead to mediocre treatment.
Do we really believe federal bureaucrats can meet each patient's unique needs? Should these economists and financial analysts (which are appointed, not voted into office) have more power then the trained and skilled physicians all over this country? Shouldn't each person have the liberty to choose for him or herself what treatment or tests they get? Government influence will destroy this already-weak healthcare system. We are heading in the wrong direction
Comments
Many would say you are repeating lies....this is the truth. Write on..........
The problem with the current U.S. system is that private insurers are the roadblock to getting proper health care.
Other industrialized nations have imperfect health care systems (England, Canada, Germany, Japan). But they work better than the U.S. system. Pointing out their problems (which are minor compared to the U.S.) does not invalidate that our health care system is broken. Cancer patients in England cannot get an expensive drug they need but a cancer patient in the U.S. cannot get treatment period (unless they are rich or have the luck of working for a company that has great insurance.)
Canadians have to stand in line to get treatment but good luck standing in any line in the U.S. if you're not insured or rich.
Ironically, this is really a financial conservative issue. People having to either pay enormous fees or go without insurance! What happen to the conservatives who wanted lower prices for services? Or is just lower taxes that's an issue?
I think the point being made here is not that rationing is the -only- issue (as explained in the opening paragraph). Perhaps what he's trying to say here is that the government is using "rationing" to solve one problem with another.
American health care is broken, and the point here is that "universal" health care with rationing attached to it is not the best way to fix it.
Rationing is what private insurers do. Solving the health care crisis is what many Americans are asking the Government to do because the private industries have messed things up.
Granted our government makes mistakes. But claiming it always messes up suggests that our constitution is a mistake, the postal service is a mistake, public education is a mistake, police forces, fire departments, water utilities, highways, all mistakes.
correct me if im wrong...but you talk about the woman who needs a pacemaker right, and if she had the public option she wouldnt get it. You do k if she needs this so bad she can stick with her own insurance and get it that way instead of getting the gov. insurance. The public option is for people who cannot afford insurance and would never come close to getting 30,000 for a pacemaker espcially since they dont make that much in a year. I'm sure those people will take the drugs over sitting there in there rundown shack suffering all day while you try and put them to death sooner than any "death panel" would do
The public option sounds like a great compromise that will make everyone happy. Sadly, I have to be realistic here. The government is not a business, so when it enters the market, either the public option dies or the private sector dies.
If the public option acts like a business, the private sector will win. The current health care system enjoys decades of experience, a large profit pool, and lots of capital to invest in case something goes wrong. If the public option is created to behave like a business, the private sector will swallow it with better paid physicians, better care, effective drugs, and timely treatment.
The most likely to happen, though, is for the government option to behave like a government program. Every time it's quality of care starts decreasing compared to the private sector, they'll tax people to increase investment in the PubOp. While businesses struggle to "make ends meet", the PubOp can just print money. It's not fairness, and it's not freedom.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!