The Democrats' rush to ration healthcare

June 7, 11:30 AMRight Side Politics ExaminerDan Spencer

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Right Side Politics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

As President Obama calls for the Democrat-controlled Congress to deliver Obamacare this summer, Betsy McCaughey, former New York State lieutenant governor and patient advocate, explains the damage this so-called reform will do to our health care.

You can watch McCaughey's interview with the Wall Streets Journal's Paul Gigot below, but first here are some highlights:

• Obama's edict to slow the flow of dollars into the health care system is going to force cuts in hospital budgets -- fewer nurses on the floor, less diagnostic equipment available and waits for treatment.

• When Obama calls for a 1.5% annual cut in health care growth, Obama is really saying ration health care -- particularly for older Americans. There will be less money to spend on everyone, especially with 46 million newly insured Americans entering the system. When you go to a hospital, you will find a lower standard of care.

• Obama's premise that if we insure more people - bring more people under government subsidies we can save money is flawed. It may be very important that everyone has coverage, but it will not save money. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, once people are insured, they will use about 70% more health services than they currently do.

• Americans spend more on health care than Europeans because they earn more. Ninety percent of the difference in spending is due to higher per capita incomes in the United States. We spend more but we also get more. For example, American women have mammograms more frequently. Their breast cancers are detected sooner, treated faster and they have much better survival rates than in most parts of Europe.

• Approximately two thirds of the annual increases in health care costs are due to innovation. If you walk into an electronics store you will see products that we're not here ten years ago. If you walk into a hospital it's the same thing -- things like screenings, MRIs, CAT scans. One statistic tells you a lot. In 1980 if you had a heart attack and made it to the hospital alive you only have a 60% chance of surviving for a year. Now your chance of surviving as well over 90%.

• The cost of health care is rising mostly because of technology. According to the Congressional Budget Office again, about two thirds of the annual increases in health care costs are due to innovation. If you walk into an electronics store you will see products that we're not here ten years ago. If you walk into a hospital it's, the same thing -- things like screenings, MRIs, CAT scans. One statistic tells you a lot. In 1980 if you had a heart attack and made it to the hospital alive you only have a 60% chance of surviving for a year. Today your chance of surviving is well over 90%.

• Health care costs are rising much less rapidly than in previous decades. In 1970 health care spending increased 10.5% a year, in 1980 13%. For the last five years it's been increasing less than 7% and in 2007 the rate of increase reached a new low of 6.1%.

• Government controls to achieve efficiency end up rationing care -- mostly based on age. For example cardiac procedures are much less frequent in Canada. Generally because the procedures are eliminated for most people over age 65.

• Prevention saves lives, but 80% of preventive measures actually add to medical costs. For example, most people who take cholesterol lowering drugs will never get sick, the same is true with mammograms. The data are so convincing hat prevention adds to medical costs that the only people who ever talk about prevention saving money are politicians.

• The proposed new health policy board which would make decisions about what to cover, what to pay for and so on removes important from the democratic process. You wind up with something like the British NICE board, which in 2006 ruled that elderly people could not get a new drug to prevent the loss of vision for macular degeneration until they had already lost vision in one eye.