Graph describing the methodology for determining the probability for the receipt of care within the new National Healthcare Program.
That graph and accompanying commentary was only specifically concerned with the issue of organ transplant eligibility/priority, not national health insurance or health care in general. Fox news revealed that today, Glen Beck I think it was.
With the presidential appointment for all of the Health Care Board Committee, that graph can be implemented there as well to support any other forms of rationing health care. I think Glenn Beck revealed that as well with the "tree" of people that surround Obama.
The scope and magnitude of this bill leaves alot of open doors to every administration that follows this one. I compare it to a balloon. It is up to each president through there political appointments to govern and regulate health care "serving" on the Health Care Committee to insert their own hot air into the balloon.
My fear is currently this administrations appointees, but I also fear the coming administrations appointees.
As I had said before, how would all of our Liberal friends feel if Bush had this same sort of power to control the what, whos, and hows of health care. I can only imagine the arguments they would have for fighting it. for example, and I am making this up based off the issues they seem to have with Conservatives.
1. You must be a member of an accepted and organized religion tithing no less than 10% weekly. 2. You must attend and participate at MLB games. 3. You must be within 10% of your BMI index to receive any form of health care.
I'm not a Liberal, so my list is probably just a little conservative for the way they think.
I'm just saying that this bill not only scares me now with the current administration, but scares me for any future administration based on this Fact alone.
Actually I have to clarify further on Jeremy's graph. The statement made by it's proponents was not that it didn't apply to health care in general, just that it wasn't yet something that they were willing to propose for health care in general. They did make it sound like that is something they'd like to consider though. Chilling.
Just 2 days ago I saw an AARP representative claiming that they were not endorsing the government health care initiative. Less than 36 hours later I see this add from AARP. Seems to me that they are flat out lying to their members. I don't have a problem with them taking a side. It's what they should do if they are going to lobby congress. That's how the system works. They should be honest with their members though. I'm 13 months away from being eligible for AARP membership. Their dishonesty will definitely be the deciding factor in my not joining AARP. They don't deserve my or your money.
What I have been hearing AARP say is that reform is needed and the present plan is good (not socialist, death panels, snuffing granny etc) but it still needs some tweeking so they are not endorsing the present wording as of today.
AARP seems to have been actually studying the plan.
Not a fan of AARP myself but that is what I have clearly heard on more than one occasion.
the fact of the matter is that there are panels of actuarials and professionals that have nothing to do with direct patient care that have been making decisions about limits on health care delivery for DECADES. Anybody that says differently doesnt have any direct experience with insurance, managed care, primary care networks, HMO, PPO, or Group benefits.
Grandma has been having services and costs cut for as long as I have been in the biz. the difference is that the money owed comes back to either the plan, or if the plan has maxed, then back to the family. There are already two states on the west coast the have the death with dignity laws that if Grandma is at a terminal, non recovery point, and that care can opt'd to be ceased. (of course the family is involved and a peer board of revue) But its already been going on. The mess that this monster is, is just the next step.
AARP is the AAA of the medical world, you can feel good about your discounts, but dont fool yourself, they exist to make money for their organization.
The difference here is that once there is only one game in town, you are stuck with their actuarial decisions and can't escape the system.
If you don't like the way the actuaries at a particular carrier underwrite claims, you walk. If enough people walk, the insurance company has to change their behavior or go out of business.
What recourse do we have when a monopolistic bureaucracy underwrites unfairly and there is nowhere else to go?
We'll be paying the same costs, but getting less choice.
Healthcare in the history of the US has had panels that decided life and death. There was a time when access to dialysis (artificial kidney) was so expensive and limited that citizen panels had to decide who was given access to the technology. Those that were denied would frequently die shortly thereafter - within days or hours.
This system was intolerable for those involved. If Grandma was 63 at the time she would have a very hard time getting treatment.
In 1972 your US Government passed the ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) act that extended Medicare type coverage to about 90% of the population and greatly expanding the number of lives that could be saved by hemodialysis technology and eliminated these citizen panels. Tens of thousands of patients were soon getting life-preserving treatments without restriction or rationing including convicts (Granny was saved).
The expanded Gov't support for this particular diagnosis cost a bundle and was shouldered by the American people with wide eyes while the costs spiraled upward.
ESRD has a lot to teach us about how healthcare can be abused and productively managed. It's history is very informative.
Ironically, a few decades later California passed their version of the "Right to Die" law allowing patients to voluntarily decline life preserving treatments. The first patient to choose this option and decline care was a dialysis patient.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield dominates the private sector, in small towns there really isnt another alternative.
What you will see, and has been happening for the last 12 years here to a large degree, is private care doctors will opt out of preferred networks, will not accept new patients (with out a financial disclosure document) and they will increasingly specialize in elective, and boutique wellness services that arent covered or regulated by insurance in any case. My brother in law does DME supplies to cosmetic Drs, ... business is booming. Sister works as RX rep; those lil pills for fun are not covered by most plans, thoug the Cialis, Levitra, Viagra triple stack are the mainstay of her reorders.
