Changes are coming with the new, overly bloated stimulus package that has a little bit more than just stimulus in it. It has some pretty serious proposals in regards to health care that seem a little more than just scary.
Much of the health provisions reads like an excerpt of Tom Daschle's book "Critical:What We Can Do About the Health care Crisis", which itself, should give anyone flu-like chills. It is modelled after the UK health care approach, which is a disaster. Now, apparently it's a good idea to adopt it here. Being a Canadian who has already lived under socialized medicine, I can see where this is going. Please don't think that happy days in the health industry are coming.
Look out grandma and grandpa:
"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "
Are kids with special needs going to have to be "more accepting" of their conditions too?
What about future treatments/therapies for people with DS?
"What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. "
You see, in an effort to save money, the government will slow down or stop research with new technology or drugs. (This should erase what little research is being done on Down syndrome, I can't imagine that getting a priority position.)
Then there is the government involvement in your/your child's health care. Government will now have the final say-so about medical treatments. And if your doctor decided not to cow-tow to the government?
"Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)"
It behooves us to monitor this very closely. Our children stand to lose quality health care and possibly even be marginalized in an effort to fund universal health care. When the government is paying for EVERYONE'S medical care, there are serious cut backs that must take place.
All quotes taken from Betsy McCaughey's commentary at Bloomberg.com
4 comments:
Something has to change, everything is such a mess and so many people are suffering.
I wanted to let you know about the T21 Travelling Afghan Project! I hope you will consider participating and I would appreciate it if you could help spread the word! Thanks!
http://littlemisse21.blogspot.com/2009/02/t21-travelling-afghan.html
This is so scary! How can people let this happen?
The author of the commentary you are quoting from is Betsy McCaughey, who is former lieutenant governor of New York (where I know her very well from) and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The HUDSON INSTITUTE which is as right wing a group as you can find. Notice she doesn't actually quote from Daschle's book because if she did she would have to admit that she has lied in her commentary. If you don't believe me go read his book. Or go ask AARP which has endorsed Daschle. Would they be doing that if he was going to deprive seniors of medical care?
Tom P.,
With a little research on Ms. McCaughey I also found she ran as a Democrat during the 1998 NY primary for governor.
I have also found all accusations levelled about Ms. McCaughey to be from "left wing" sources. So we will have to call it a draw as to just what politics lie behind Ms. McCaughey's assertations.
I have to be honest, I read the article as a person who lived with socialized medicine for 35 of my 40years. While I could regale you with many stories about first hands accounts with socialized medicine, and point out that the government in Canada simply will not pay for up to date drug therapy (all of which was alluded to in Ms. McCaugheys article) or discuss why such a huge number of Canadian doctors headed to the U.S. to practice because they had their income capped (which limits how many patients you can see in a day), instead I will pose a question to you.
Why do you think Canadians come to the U.S. for treatments?
A) Canadians like to get second mortgages on their homes to pay for timely medical treatment.
B) Nurses in the U.S. wear cooler scrubs.
C) Having your cancer treatments in the U.S. has a certain cache that you can brag about at euchre night.
D) Canadians feel that waiting in a line for timely treatment and being withheld up-to-date treatments regimes can be fatal.
I don't think you understand what socialized medicine is Tom, because if you did you would be afraid for your health and the health of your family. If you think that socialized medicine raises all citizens to a certain level of medical care you have been wrongly informed. The reality is, the 15% of the uncovered population will not be raised to the care you may be accustomed to. The reality is the other 85% all make do with less to accomodate the 15%.
I absolutely think that everyone should have access to adequate care, but socialization of the system is not the answer.
Post a Comment