PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Healthcare Reform Biased Against Seniors




FrankRep
07-26-2009, 12:01 AM
Health Reform Biased Against Seniors (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/1513)


Steven J. DuBord | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
27 July 2009


Dr. John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog (http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/rationing-health-care-2/#more-4364) for July 22 makes clear the harsh reality that the only way for President Barack Obama’s version of healthcare reform “to control health care costs is to get doctors to provide less care — fewer tests, fewer procedures, fewer everything.” And who gets the least healthcare of all? Senior citizens.

What is the basis for these allegations of biased healthcare rationing? Dr. Goodman cites none other than White House healthcare policy adviser Ezekiel Emanuel. “Allocation by age is not invidious discrimination,” Emanuel wrote (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf) in the January 31 issue of the British medical journal the Lancet. “Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.” So because everyone would get an equal chance to be favored when they are young, they would be equally discriminated against when they are old. “Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist,” Emmanuel maintains, but “treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

Emanuel is advocating here the complete lives system, which allocates medical care first to those who have not yet lived a “complete” life — however that is defined — prioritizing those who have the greatest potential to live a complete life in the future. He notes that “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people,” because “the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.” How will such a system be sold to the public? Emanuel believes that “the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.”

Dr. Goodman points out how this all fits with current reform proposals. “Buried somewhere in the 1,000 plus pages” of Capitol Hill legislation “is a provision to severely limit what Medicare pays for CT and MRI scans performed in doctors' offices. This would force elderly patients, for example, to go to the hospital for their radiology — where there are often lengthy waits.” The elderly, who frequently have difficulty with mobility, will be stuck making another long and arduous trip to the hospital when their needs could have been met in one visit to the doctor’s office. Some will put off or outright refuse this hassle that younger people are better able to endure.

USA Today reported on July 17 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-16-healthcare_N.htm) that many medical professionals are issuing stern warnings against a reduction in office-based imaging. “It’s something that’s going to affect patients dearly, I’m afraid,” said Steven Harms, a radiologist at the Breast Center of Northwest Arkansas. “There are a lot of small towns (where doctors) are doing CTs and MRIs, and I don't think they’re going to be able to stay in business.” Jack Lewin, chief executive officer of the American College of Cardiology, stated: “We're concerned about how it will affect access to care and the availability of those services, particularly in low-income communities.” He added that places “already on the fringe of saying, ‘We can’t quite afford this service,’ drop off.’ ”

This is Obama’s vision for healthcare reform. Instead of undoing the managed-care system the government is responsible for and allowing the free market to compete at providing affordable, quality care, Obama’s proposals would implement Emanuel’s model of rationing. As Dr. Goodman puts it: “Clearly the Administration does not consider doctors the best judge of what people need. The obvious end game: Washington will tell doctors how to practice medicine.”

Worse yet, Washington would decide what constitutes a complete life and would tell doctors not to practice medicine on those who aren’t worth the expense.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/1513

sevin
07-26-2009, 08:52 AM
yeah, my parents are getting checkups and seeing their doctor as much as possible now in case this shit passes

zach
07-26-2009, 09:07 AM
I particularly liked the rhetoric used by Rahm:


..which allocates medical care first to those who have not yet lived a“complete” life — however that is defined — prioritizing those who have the greatest potential to live a complete life in the future. He notes that “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people,” because “the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.”

So elders are down to the level of adolescents now?

FrankRep
07-27-2009, 08:08 PM
Seniors will get screwed by this Healthcare bill.

Audio:
http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanN wP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoY XJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01

FrankRep
07-28-2009, 01:52 PM
Act Now to Defeat Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care!

Get the tools:
http://www.jbs.org/freedom-campaign/5148

RoyalShock
07-28-2009, 02:19 PM
A little OT, but has anyone else noticed a dramatic increase in advertisements (mainly radio/TV) for schools/institutes that educate/train healthcare workers?

It seems as though they see a dramatic decrease in demand (what would logically come from rationing) on the horizon, so they're trying to get students into their programs (money for the institution) before it becomes obvious.

Bman
07-28-2009, 02:27 PM
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/

Read up this is where we are heading. I wish the idiots who support this shit would do some reading.

Kraig
07-28-2009, 02:27 PM
...it's biased against taxpayers who care about just the seniors...

jkr
07-28-2009, 03:49 PM
who here remebers Logan's run?

Pepsi
07-28-2009, 04:00 PM
It may seem silly, but the singular fact about freedom is that having it means you have the God given right to ruin your own health without government saying you can’t, or standing in your way to get the medical care you need to fix your own mess. Obamacare, however, will both tell you how to live (taking away your freedom) as well as withhold from you the medical care you need to fix yourself. In fact, by its very nature, government healthcare has to end up that way.

Do you doubt that statement? Do you think that the benevolent father in Washington would never withhold medical care from those in need just because they are fat, old, or because they smoke or drink too much? Is this just fearmongering on my part as far as you are concerned? Au contraire. It is already happening in countries that have national socialistic healthcare systems and the sad tale of Gary Reinbach (RIP) of Dagenham, Essex, U.K. is exhibit number one.

You see the 22-year-old Reinbach is… or rather was, an admitted alcoholic. At that young age, he drank his liver into oblivion and needed a transplant. But the nationalized healthcare bureaucrats that governed what care Mr. Reinbach was “allowed” to have refused him a liver transplant because others “deserved” it more. So, Mr. Reinbach died of his liver disease at age 22. Killed as much by his self abuse as by a government that refused to treat his ailment.

Did he “deserve” to die? Would you say good riddance to him for being so gauche as to indulge in his freedom to abuse his own liver. Perhaps he got his just deserts when his young life was ended by self-abuse?

But here is the question: who is the government to decide that Mr. Reinbach wasn’t “worth” the effort to save his life? Who was the government to sentence him to death? What government has the right to decide that someone cannot change? What right does government have to say who lives or dies based on cost, waiting lists, and assumed worthiness?

Well, you say, that was England. It can’t happen here, right? Wrong.

You see, the only way that government healthcare can work is to arrive at definitions, limits, categories, check boxes, regulations, rules, and procedures. And in every instance those regulations and rules will be governed by bureaucrats. Not doctors, not patients, not family members. It will be pencil pushers, paper shufflers, rules-makers that make the decisions who gets what. Those will be the ones that have the power of life and death over every last American once Obamacare is in place.

So, if you fall off a bicycle, should government decide you don’t deserve to have your broken arm fixed because you are the one responsible for breaking it and “the people” aren’t responsible to pay to have it fixed?

Healthcare denied.

Will your overweight mother be denied heart surgery because she ate herself to that condition?

Healthcare denied.

Will your 2-packs-a-day uncle be told to go off and die without Chemotherapy for his lung cancer because, after all, he smoked himself to that disease?

Healthcare denied.

All of these are certainly possible denials of service by government. All it will take is one busy body Congressman to decide to slip in such a restriction into an appropriations bill one day and, voila, healthcare denied.

Then we have the other question: is it even fair to expect the taxpayer to pay for a guy to get a liver even if he is an admitted alcoholic? Many would spitefully say no. In fact, there are many activists against sugar, fatty foods, transfats, cigarettes, various drugs, even meat, that would vigorously assert that government healthcare should be denied to those that eat or do the “wrong” things, things that might cause them health problems.

So, where does that leave the so-called healthcare-for-all ideal? It leads it into a debate on worthiness instead of access. It leads to coercion instead of freedom. It leads to the destruction of personal decisions and the institution of tyranny.

It leads to the dismantling of America.

Can you say Hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy is the act of being less critical of oneself than of others

Members of the U.S. Congress. Representatives and Senators alike receive some of the best health care benefits in the country, much of it paid for with taxpayer dollars. Yet these same members seem unable - or unwilling - to extend similar protections to the rest of America.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.

Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.

And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves and are going to get ration healthcare with this bill.

And the Congressional perks don’t stop with the FEHBP.

According to the article “Health care as good as Congress gets,” by John Barry, a staff writer for the St. Petersburg Times, “Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.”

Although members pay extra for these services - Representatives pay about $300 per month, and Senators about $600 - taxpayers end up kicking in another $2 million. That’s $2 million not being spent on those who need it.

House and Senate’s Health Care Legacy

Despite the services that members of Congress receive at the taxpayer’s expense, they’ve done little on behalf of those who cannot afford or cannot get health care

Hypocrisy is the act of being less critical of oneself than of others

Oppose H.R.3200 The America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009!

haaaylee
07-28-2009, 04:38 PM
YouTube - Congresswoman Bachmann: A Horrific Notion To All Americans! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3r4aYZK3RU)

FrankRep
07-30-2009, 11:36 AM
Congresswoman Bachmann: No Health care for the disabled


YouTube - Congresswoman Bachmann: A Horrific Notion To All Americans! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3r4aYZK3RU)