 |
We Shouldn’t Have Health Care Because the Hypothetical Future is Scary |
 |
That’s basically the argument of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board today:
Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that “spend less” than the U.S. on health care. He’s right that many countries do, but what he doesn’t want to explain is how they ration care to do it.
Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.
…
The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration’s argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out “waste.” Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration’s new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.
Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can’t possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.
So, because the Wall Street Journal thinks that at some point in the distant future the Obama health care plan could possibly start to look like England’s, Americans should have health care reform? Really?
What about the care that’s rationed in this country every day? What about Maureen’s story? Maureen’s insurance company intentionally delayed her care (rationed it) because it was too expensive. She almost died. Check out the video of her story:
Think of how many stories you hear in the media about people skipping their doctors visit because they can’t afford it. Or hospitals or insurance companies denying care because of some esoteric rule in a patient’s health care plan. The reality is we ration care in this country, and there is already a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor - an insurance company employee who’s job it is to deny as much care as possible to save the company money.
These practices, right here in the USA, must stop. That’s why we need reform. Don’t let the fear-mongers scare you into losing sight of that.
Until there is an honest attempt at tort reform and the expenses doctors face to protect themselves from extraneous lawsuits there will be no effective health care reform. Documented expenses of 30% per health care dollar goes to tests designed to forego potential lawsuits is ridiculous. Neuro Surgeons paying $250,000 per year for liability insurance is outrageous. If you want to bring down the health care costs solve this immediate problem! Oh– trial lawyers are major political contributers to keep the status quo– fat chance of reform.
“The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.”
Doesn’t the WSJ realize that millions of Americans are already being told this by private insurance companies? Do they think that the public is going to conveniently forget this fact?
I still maintain that at the core of this belief is the fact that the the haves are not willing to risk any diminishment in their quality of care so that the have-nots can get any care at all.