RSS
Home
A glimpse of the future of Healthcare: rationing up, quality down
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
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
Related Articles:
Comments
