Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

uclayoda87 (30.59)

Universal Health Care – The Final Solution to the Social Security and Medicare Problems

Recs

21

April 29, 2009 – Comments (42) | RELATED TICKERS: HMA , THC , MDTH

Universal Health Care gives the public the Hope that all will be able to receive excellent health care at little or no cost.  Unlimited health care will now be elevated to a right without responsibilities.  In this new Utopia each person, independent of citizenship or legal status, will be given a card, which opens the doors to the best of medical care and with the guarantee of satisfaction.  At least this is the perception, but not the reality.  In keeping with the rhetoric of the new administration we are asked to have faith that the benevolent government will keep us healthy and safe.

The financial reality of supplying unlimited excellent care is that the fees charged by health care providers (physicians, nurses, therapists, hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and other health care providers) must decrease substantially to avoid bankrupting the US government.  Some cost savings will be achieved by cutting out the middlemen insurance companies.  Many of these insurance companies will likely become failed businesses as the US government takes over as the primary insurer for the country.  Unfortunately, the expected government waste associated with managing this program will eat away at any potential cost savings.  Which means that health care providers, who stay in the system, will see an unlimited amount of work, but very limited reimbursement.

But remember that medical practices are mostly small businesses, which provide the service of medical care.  These business have employees, office space and other usual costs of business.  The physicians and other health care providers of the practice who are allowed to bill for services are the main revenue generating parts of the practice.  Some groups also have other sources of revenue such as labs and imaging services.  With Universal Health Care, fees paid to health care groups will have to fall substantially to achieve a neutral cost, when compared to the current system.  Initially, groups that are well managed may survive the reimbursement cuts, but as good paying insurance companies go out of business, even these financially sound groups will become financially compromised.

If possible, some physician groups will opt out of the government plan and transition to a cash for service business.  In time, the population of medical providers will decrease.  This will result in limiting medical access to those holding only government sponsored medical coverage.  A two-tiered medical system will evolve unless the government outlaws private medical practice, by state or federal regulations.

In addition to the financial stress to medical practice groups caused by decreased reimbursement, the physician owners will also be hit by higher federal and state income taxes, creating a disincentive to work longer hours.  Again, this would result in a further shortage of health care providers, since the remaining providers would be motivated to work fewer hours.

Some physicians will seek out local hospitals for direct employment, similar to the VA system.  But unlike the VA system, these physicians' loyalties will be to the hospital first and the patient second.  In the VA system, the patients are the first priority since the government is the hospital and the government does not expect to make a profit by providing health care to its veterans.  Physicians employed at "for-profit" hospitals who are unwilling to work by these rules will be replaced by better workers.

So how does Universal Health Care fix Social Security and Medicare?  By helping to create a younger healthier population who are not old enough to receive Social Security and are not ill enough to require expensive medical care.

It is not just urban legend but true that a large sum of health care dollars are used in the last few months of a person’s life.  Imagine a large segment of older sick Americans with only government-sponsored insurance and few local health care providers.  Some of these people won’t be treated, not for lack of insurance but because Universal Health Care is a lie.  Heart failure, cancer, diabetes, myocardial infarctions, strokes, pneumonias, and other chronic illnesses and infections will provide the final solution to the aging baby boomer problem.  Dead people don’t get to collect Social Security!

So if the President tells you that Universal Health Care will make us a healthier nation in 4 years, believe him!  If he tells you that Universal Health Care will save the government money in the long run, believe him!  If he tells you that the ranks of the unemployed (retired Americans) will decrease during his first term, believe him!  Just don’t ask for details, you'll sleep better.  Denial I'm sure helped the Germans durring World War II!

We Americans will eventually learn to live and die in a more natural way.  The environmentalists would be expected to support the population control and the decreased carbon utilization of a smaller, healthier society.

Survival of the fittest and financially well connected will become the greatest irony of the progressive movement, who did not envision the extermination of the old and sick as the consequence of Universal Health Care.

But in a neo-fascist system of progressive authoritarian rule, the ends also justifies the means.

God help us!

42 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 29, 2009 at 8:19 AM, garyc27 (< 20) wrote:

Does that mean if I am an older person who needs a heart transplant that I will get a letter from the government basically telling me it's my "duty to die"; so that the New Improved health care system can pay for that same procedure for a 23 year old illegal alien in this country?

Report this comment
#2) On April 29, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Entrepreneur58 (94.96) wrote:

You fail to point out that the US currently has by far the most expensive and least efficient heathcare system of any country in the world. 

Report this comment
#3) On April 29, 2009 at 8:31 AM, rofgile (84.39) wrote:

Sure sure, this is a big plan to stop paying for drugs for old people so they die horrible deaths from Obama-Hitler.

 

You sir are crazy.

 

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#4) On April 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

morgan628 - Yes.

 

Entrepreneur58 - Eliminate defensive medicine (trial lawyers), 3rd party payers (middle man waste), and make most Rx drugs over the counter (without Rx to lower drug costs).

 

rofgile - Drugs you will be able to get over the counter but the information you need to make good decisions you will have to pay for.  The medical profession will look more like the legal profession.  You won't be able to call the "Doctor" to get free advise.  Go visit a big county hospital and stay there for several hours, then you will begin to understand.  Those are county or state run institutions.  I doubt that the federal government can do much better.

Report this comment
#5) On April 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, chopchop0 (49.31) wrote:

My favorite bumper sticker: You think healthcare is expensive now, Wait til it's FREE!

 

Also, one thing to keep in mind: we have an obesity rate that puts the rest of the developed world (including nearly all of western europe) to shame.   Fatter people use more healthcare.

Report this comment
#6) On April 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM, chopchop0 (49.31) wrote:

My favorite bumper sticker: You think healthcare is expensive now, Wait til it's FREE!

 

Also, one thing to keep in mind: we have an obesity rate that puts the rest of the developed world (including nearly all of western europe) to shame.   Fatter people use more healthcare.

Report this comment
#7) On April 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM, lenri (90.63) wrote:

Good post uclay.

The Universal Health Care myth gets propagated like roses in a greenhouse. I never looked at this the way you have but it makes sense. I also can see it is as a very subtle form of "back-door" euthenasia developing. You have made very valid points unfortunately not enough people will listen.

No, obama supporters. The libs do not plan for these ideas to fail. Temper your outrage. I believe that they believe in what they do and propose. It's just that when one of their pie-in-the-sky concepts fail they just congratulate themselves for trying it and re-introduce it again later. I just wonder what all of those trial lawyers will be doing. If all of the doctors are g-men who are they going to sue in order to meet their monthly yacht payments. They may have to go out of business or go sell derivatives for a living. Actually that unintended consequence of legal restraint might just be worth the cost.

Report this comment
#8) On April 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

chopchop0 Expense measured in Dollars or Lives?  We already have a tax on tobacco and alcohol, why not a fat tax?  The sin of gluttony.

Report this comment
#9) On April 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

lenri  You're right, I didn't consider the potential cost savings from decreased legal fees, but there will still be private hospital groups (HMA, MDTH, etc.) with deep enough pockets to feed the trial lawyers for at least a little while.  Suing the government is not likely to be profitable.  But don't worry about lawyers, they are quite bright and resourceful, I'm sure they will find other things to occupy their time.  Estate planning and probate comes to mind.

Report this comment
#10) On April 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

lenri  To continue this last thought, lawyers will now be occupied with the bankruptcies of human lives in a similar fashion to bankruptcies of US companies, which should also be keeping them busy for the next few years.

Report this comment
#11) On April 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM, lenri (90.63) wrote:

LOL. Estate planning and probate increase due to a program that may lead to a decrease in the average death age. Sounds like a winner to me. I knew that I should have re-thought that accounting and business degree years ago.

Report this comment
#12) On April 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM, mas113m (88.97) wrote:

If we instate Obama's Final Solution, where will the Canadians go when they do not wish to wait a year for an MRI?

Report this comment
#13) On April 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

mas113m   India.  They have a travel service where you stay in a Ritz Carlton type hotel, have private nursing and great care.  Some people in the US go there for their surgery.  And it is not that expensive.  They also don't have a lot of the fixed costs that that US system has.

Report this comment
#14) On April 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM, mas113m (88.97) wrote:

India. sounds very convenient.

Report this comment
#15) On May 05, 2009 at 10:59 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

The End of Private Health Insurance - WSJ.com

Apr 12, 2009 ... When government 'competes,' guess who always wins?
online.wsj.com/article/SB123958544583612437.html

Report this comment
#16) On May 10, 2009 at 2:27 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

When Doctors Opt Out - WSJ.com

 We already know what government-run health care looks like.


online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html

Report this comment
#17) On May 11, 2009 at 10:17 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

Obama says healthcare overhaul could save trillions

Barack Obama Reuters –

 

Video Barack Obama Video:Obama proposes $2 trillion in healthcare savings AP

By Caren Bohan Caren Bohan – 2 hrs 7 mins ago

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama will aim on Monday to build support for a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system by highlighting a drive for greater efficiency he predicts could save trillions of dollars....

Believe Him!

Report this comment
#18) On May 11, 2009 at 10:23 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

From the same article:

 "A more efficient healthcare system would save the government money by reducing spending on the huge Medicare system, an existing program for older Americans."

 

Sound familiar, read the blog again.

Report this comment
#19) On May 28, 2009 at 3:34 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ OPINION

MAY 12, 2009

How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

 

Expect longer waits for appointments as physicians get pinched on reimbursements....

"Right or wrong, more doctors will close their practices to new patients, especially patients carrying lower paying insurance such as Medicaid. Some doctors will opt out of the system entirely, going "cash only." If too many doctors take this route the government could step in -- as in Canada, for example -- to effectively outlaw private-only medical practice. "

This article draws many of the same conclusions which I noted above, with respect to the affect on medical practices and access to care.

This article did not address the consequences of this type of health care reform, since the purpose of the article was to argue for another type of health care reform.

GOD, grant me the
Serenity
to accept the things
I cannot change
Courage
to change the
things I can
and the
Wisdom
to know the difference.

 This prayer is used in medicine every day.  Hopefully government intervention won't take God out of Medicine too.

 

Report this comment
#20) On May 31, 2009 at 3:04 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:


WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK

MAY 19, 2009


How Washington Rations

 

ObamaCare omen: a case study in 'cost-control.'

 

...Initially, the open-ended style of American care will barely be touched, if only for political self-preservation. Health planners will adjust at the margins, as with virtual colonoscopy. But scarcity forces choices. As the Medicare trustees note in their report, the tax increases necessary to fund merely the current benefit schedule for the elderly would cripple the economy. The far more expensive public option will not turn into a pumpkin when cost savings do not materialize. At that point, government will clamp down with price controls in the form of lines and rock-bottom reimbursement rates.

Mr. Orszag says that a federal health board will make these Solomonic decisions, which is only true until the lobbies get to Congress and the White House. With virtual colonoscopy, radiologists and gastroenterologists are feuding over which group should get paid for colon cancer screening. Companies like General Electric and Seimens that make CT technology are pressuring Medicare administrators too. More than 50 Congressmen are demanding that the decision be overturned.

All this is merely a preview of the life-and-death decisions that will be determined by politics once government finances substantially more health care than the 46% it already does. Anyone who buys Democratic claims about "choice" and "affordability" will be in for a very rude awakening.

When treatable sick people are allowed to die for the benefit of Universal Health Care, then we will be well on our way to living Logan's Run.

Does anyone remember that before Hitler began exterminating the Jews, that he made the decision to euthanise an otherwise healthy german child with a birth defect?  He concluded that this was for the benefit of the child and society.

History does have an annoying way of repeating itself.  For a well available reference, check out the many stories in the Old Testament of the Bible.

 

Report this comment
#21) On June 09, 2009 at 2:24 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:


REVIEW & OUTLOOK


JUNE 9, 2009

Obama's Health Cost Illusion

The President's main case for reform is rooted in false claims and little evidence.

The main White House argument for health-care reform goes something like this: If we spend now on a hugely expensive new insurance program for the middle class, we can save later by reducing overall U.S. health spending. This "tastes great, less filling" theory could stand some scrutiny, not least because it is being used to rush through the greatest social spending program in American history. ...

Report this comment
#22) On June 10, 2009 at 1:42 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ OPINION
JUNE 9, 2009


Canada's ObamaCare Precedent

 

Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly.

By DAVID GRATZER

 

Congressional Democrats will soon put forward their legislative proposals for reforming health care. Should they succeed, tens of millions of Americans will potentially be joining a new public insurance program and the federal government will increasingly be involved in treatment decisions.

Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

...

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

 

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

 

Report this comment
#23) On June 14, 2009 at 8:59 AM, devoish (99.64) wrote:

Americans need to ask more basic questions;

What is your model Country?

Did you miss any buzzwords?

Report this comment
#24) On June 16, 2009 at 3:56 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ JUNE 15, 2009
Hospital Industry Bristles at Cuts

 

After Proposing $313 Billion Health-Spending Reduction, Obama Must Win Support
By JANET ADAMY and JONATHAN D. ROCKOFF

 

...New York City offers a window into what could happen when payments to safety-net hospitals are cut. Already running at a deficit, the city's public hospital system is looking at $150 million in state Medicaid cuts for next year. Next month, it will close some outpatient services, such as community-based primary and preventive-care offices.

"We are in a position already where we are making painful decisions that require us to reduce access and services," said Alan D. Aviles, president and chief executive of the system, known as the Health and Hospitals Corp.

 

Report this comment
#25) On June 16, 2009 at 4:10 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

 WSJ OPINION


JUNE 15, 2009

The 'Public Plan' Would Be the Only Plan

 

It's impossible for private insurers to 'compete' with government.

By SCOTT E. HARRINGTON

The Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership appear poised to create a "competing" government health insurer as part of its health-care reform. President Obama believes this would provide "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest," as he wrote to Sens. Edward Kennedy and Max Baucus on June 2.

In reality, equal competition between a public plan and private plans would be impossible. The public plan would inexorably crowd out private plans, leading to a single-payer system.

...

The simple truth is that equal competition between a government health-insurance plan and private plans would be impossible. An ostensibly competing public plan would make a single-payer system inevitable. Health-care providers and other Americans should recognize this reality and be prepared for the consequences.

Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

 

Report this comment
#26) On June 16, 2009 at 4:20 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal Forum.

This was a quote from the article, not my statement.  Included is a link to the WSJ Opinion Journal Forum.

Report this comment
#27) On June 25, 2009 at 10:40 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

Shocking Admission by Obama! Fair & Balanced Look at ABC Infomercial

In Obama's own words: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery and take the pain killers"

He is referring to very ill people where an outcome is not guaranteed, but since an outcome is never guaranteed this statement could cover a lot of people.  So will Obama ultimately decide your fate by giving you his option (pain killers) or no care at all?

rofgile

I hope you had the chance to see the President's health care infomercial, definitely no right wing bias here at ABC.  So you don't have to believe me, but just listen to what the President said and believe what you here.  How much proof do you need?

 

 

Report this comment
#28) On June 25, 2009 at 10:58 PM, VIS46 (< 20) wrote:

If you think Canada Health system is bad,howcome our Northern brothers beat us in every health care parameters like longivity,infant mortality,maternal mortality and disease prevention.They should have broke by now, but they are not.Wall street Journal hides all that.Sure they might wait for their Total Joint procedure but not for emergencies.

Report this comment
#29) On June 28, 2009 at 6:50 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK

JUNE 29, 2009


Obama's Health Future

 Rationing, and not only withholding care from the elderly.

President Obama's TV health-care forum on Wednesday evening was useful, because revealing. Namely, Mr. Obama shared more than he probably intended about the kind of rationing that his health plan will inevitably impose.

At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.

"Look, the first thing for all of us to understand that is we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care," Mr. Obama replied. After discussing ways "we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves," he continued that in general "at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

What Mr. Obama is describing is his preferred health-care future. If or when the Administration's speculative cost-cutting measures under universal health care fail to produce savings, government will start explicitly limiting patient access to treatments and services regarded as too expensive. Democrats deny this eventuality, but health planners will have no choice, given that the current entitlement system is already barreling toward insolvency without adding millions of new people to the federal balance sheet.

Earlier, a physician asked Mr. Obama if he would subject his own family to the restrictions of a national health plan, even if specialists recommended treatments that weren't covered. The President was noncommittal: "And you're absolutely right that, if it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care." We suspect most Americans would agree.

 

Report this comment
#30) On July 02, 2009 at 1:56 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ OPINION
JUNE 30, 2009

How Other Countries Judge Malpractice

 

The health-care systems Democrats want to emulate don't allow contingency fees or large jury awards.

 


By RICHARD A. EPSTEIN

 

In his recent speech to the American Medical Association, President Barack Obama held out the tantalizing possibility of reforming medical malpractice law as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. health-care system. As usual, he hedged his bets by declining to endorse the only medical malpractice reform with real bite -- a national cap on damages for pain and suffering, such as the ones enacted in more than 30 states.

These caps are usually set between $250,000 to $500,000, and they can make a substantial difference. Other reforms, such as rules that limit contingency fees, shorten statutes of limitation, or confine each defendant's tort exposure to his proportionate share of the harm, have small and uncertain effects.

Medical malpractice, of course, is not just an American issue. And now that the U.S. is considering universal health-care systems similar to those found elsewhere, it's worth a quick peek at their medical malpractice systems -- which usually attract far less controversy, and are far less expensive, than our own. ...

Report this comment
#31) On July 03, 2009 at 1:59 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ OPINION
JULY 1, 2009


Parsing the Health Reform Arguments

Some of the shibboleths we've heard in recent weeks don't make much sense.

 


By GEORGE NEWMAN

 

The health-care debate continues. We have now heard from nearly all the politicians, experts and interested parties: doctors, drug makers, hospitals, insurance companies, even constitutional lawyers (though not, significantly, from trial lawyers, who know full well "change" is not coming to their practices). Here is how one humble economist sees some of the main arguments, which I have paraphrased below:

- "The American people overwhelmingly favor reform."

If you ask whether people would be happier if somebody else paid their medical bills, they generally say yes. But surveys on consumers' satisfaction with their quality of care show overwhelming support for the continuation of the present arrangement. The best proof of this is the belated recognition by the proponents of health-care reform that they need to promise people that they can keep what they have now.

- "The cost of health care rises two to three times as fast as inflation."

That's like comparing the price of hamburger 30 years ago with the price of filet mignon today and calling the difference inflation. Or the price of a 19-inch, black-and-white TV 30 years ago with the price of a 50-inch HDTV today. The improvements in medical care are even more dramatic, leading to longer life, less pain, fewer exploratory surgeries and miracle drugs. Of course the research, the equipment and the training that produce these improvements don't come cheap.

...

- "Decisions will still be made by doctors and patients and the system won't be politicized."

Fat chance. Funding conflicts between mental health and gynecology will be based on which pressure group offers the richer bribe or appears more politically correct. The closing (or opening) of a hospital will be based not on need but which subcommittee chairman's district the hospital is in. Imagine the centralization of all medical research in the country in the brand new Robert Byrd Medical Center in Morgantown, W.Va. You get the idea.

- "We need a public plan to keep the private plans honest."

The 1,500 or so private plans don't produce enough competition? Making it 1,501 will do the trick? But then why stop there? Eating is even more important than health care, so shouldn't we have government-run supermarkets "to keep the private ones honest"? After all, supermarkets clearly put profits ahead of feeding people. And we can't run around naked, so we should have government-run clothing stores to keep the private ones honest. And shelter is just as important, so we should start public housing to keep private builders honest. Oops, we already have that. And that is exactly the point. Think of everything you know about public housing, the image the term conjures up in your mind. If you like public housing you will love public health care.

Mr. Newman is an economist and retired business executive.

 

Report this comment
#32) On July 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

DEM HEALTH RX A POI$ON PILL IN NY

 

By CHARLES HURT IN DC and DAVID SEIFMAN AND JENNIFER FERMINO IN NY, Post Wire Services

 

Last updated: 2:20 PM July 16, 2009

 

Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.

New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.

The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state's wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.

That means New York's top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.

The non-partisan think-tank calculated the average local tax rate in New York State at 1.7 percent, and combined it with the 8.97 percent that high-bracket state taxpayers will shell out in 2011, when the health care plan is set to take effect. Tack on the 39.6 percent federal tax rate, 2.9 percent for Medicare and 5.4 percent for the health care "surtax," and the figure is 56.92 percent for the Empire State.

In New York City, the top tax rate is 3.65 percent, making the Big Apple's top combined rate even higher.

The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama's ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.

Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don't offer health care.

But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses -- a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.

Obama took to the airwaves yesterday with ads and TV interviews promoting the need to reform health care.

As a Senate health committee passed a different version of a health-care reform bill - a milestone for the issue - Obama said on NBC, "The American people have to realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch."

And in a Rose Garden speech, he said the "status quo" on health care is "threatening the financial stability of families, of businesses, and of government. It's unsustainable, and it has to change."

Asked if Obama supports the surtax on wealthiest Americans even though it would break a campaign pledge, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only, "It's a process that we're watching."

Republicans in Washington and small-business defenders in New York said the House legislation would effectively place a stranglehold on businesses while running off top earners.

"Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession," said Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce.

"If there's one sure way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, this is it."

Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that "in the middle of a recession, it's a very strange way to legislate."

"According to what we've read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan," Lipsky said.

Under the House plan, businesses with payrolls of $400,000 or more would pay an 8 percent penalty for uninsured workers, while companies with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 would pay slightly smaller penalties.

Adding to this burden, said Michael Moran of the State Business Council of New York, is that New York is already a high-tax state.

"Any additional taxes make New York even less competitive," he said.

New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).

Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year.

The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end.

Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an umbrella organization representing the city's major businesses, said that the estimated top marginal tax rate of 57 percent for New York actually underestimates the potential impact on businesses.

That's because it doesn't include the city's burdensome unincorporated-business tax, which snares many entrepreneurs.

"It could be between 62 and 63 percent," she said.

If the House plan passes, Wylde said, "There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York."

A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned.

"Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income," he said. "That's the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard.

According to the city's Department for Small Business Services, there are some 220,000 small businesses in the five boroughs. The agency does not keep track of how many offer health insurance.

"It's something that's going to kill jobs. That's the result," said Stephanie Cathcart, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Among the most egregious provisions of the House proposal, she said, is a requirement that businesses pay the cost of 72.4 percent of individual health plans and 65 percent of family plans.

Those that don't hit the mark would face the payroll tax penalty.

It would be interesting to know how many of these small businesses and individuals are health care providers.  If they leave the state, then the remaining new yorkers would be paying higher taxes for less access to medical care.  But if the intent of the bill is to raise taxes and provide less health care, this should work.  This leads me back to my original theme:

So how does Universal Health Care fix Social Security and Medicare?  By helping to create a younger healthier population who are not old enough to receive Social Security and are not ill enough to require expensive medical care.

 

Report this comment
#33) On July 21, 2009 at 12:27 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:



WSJ OPINION


JULY 15, 2009

Universal Health Care Isn't Worth Our Freedom

What would Thoreau have made of the current debate?


By THOMAS SZASZ

 

People who seek the services of auto mechanics want car repair, not "auto care." Similarly, most people who seek the services of medical doctors want body repair, not "health care."

We own our cars, are responsible for the cost of maintaining them, and decide what needs fixing based partly on balancing the seriousness of the problem against the expense of repairing it. Our health-care system rests on the principle that, although we own our bodies, the community or state ought to be responsible for paying the cost of repairing them. This is for the ostensibly noble purpose of redistributing the potentially ruinous expense of the medical care of unfortunate individuals.

But what is health care? The concept of reimbursable health-care service rests on the premise that the medical problem in need of servicing is the result of involuntary, unwanted happenings, not the result of voluntary, goal-directed behavior. Leukemia, lupus, prostate cancer, and many infectious diseases are unwanted happenings. Are we going to count obesity, smoking, depression and schizophrenia as the same kinds of diseases?

Many Americans would willingly pay for insurance to protect them against the exorbitant cost of treating their own leukemia. But how many Americans would willingly pay for insurance to protect them from the expenses of treating their own depression?

Everyone recognizes that the more fully we wish insurance companies to defray our out of pocket expenses for our car repairs, the higher the premium they will charge for the policy. Yet foregoing reimbursement for trivial or unnecessary health-care costs in return for a more suitable health-care policy is an option unavailable under the present system. Everyone with health insurance is compelled to protect himself from risks, such as alcoholism and erectile dysfunction, that he would willingly shoulder in exchange for a lower premium.

The idea that every life is infinitely precious and therefore everyone deserves the same kind of optimal medical care is a fine religious sentiment and moral ideal. As political and economic policy, it is vainglorious delusion. Rich and educated people not only receive better goods and services in all areas of life than do poor and uneducated people, they also tend to take better care of themselves and their possessions, which in turn leads to better health. The first requirement for better health care for all is not equal health care for everyone but educational and economic advancement for everyone.

Our national conversation about curbing the cost of health care is crippled by the vocabulary in which we conduct it. We must stop talking about "health care" as if it were some kind of collective public service, like fire protection, provided equally to everyone who needs it. No government can provide the same high quality body repair services to everyone. Not all doctors are equally good physicians, and not all sick persons are equally good patients.

If we persevere in our quixotic quest for a fetishized medical equality we will sacrifice personal freedom as its price. We will become the voluntary slaves of a "compassionate" government that will provide the same low quality health care to everyone.

Henry David Thoreau famously remarked, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." Thoreau feared a single, unarmed man approaching him with such a passion in his heart. Too many people now embrace the coercive apparatus of the modern state professing the same design.

Dr. Szasz is emeritus professor of psychiatry at Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York. He is author of "The Myth of Mental Illness," among other books (HarperCollins, 1961).

 

"Universal Health Care gives the public the Hope that all will be able to receive excellent health care at little or no cost.  Unlimited health care will now be elevated to a right without responsibilities.  In this new Utopia each person, independent of citizenship or legal status, will be given a card, which opens the doors to the best of medical care and with the guarantee of satisfaction.  At least this is the perception, but not the reality.  In keeping with the rhetoric of the new administration we are asked to have faith that the benevolent government will keep us healthy and safe."

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#34) On July 21, 2009 at 1:02 AM, booyahh (< 20) wrote:

Don't worry, if the govt health care sucks, which it probably will,  then many people will be prepared to pay for private insurance, regardless of the higher cost.   

Report this comment
#35) On July 23, 2009 at 1:32 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

booyahh

The green shoots of private medical practice is coming back to Canada.  I agree that US citizens will not be tolerant of a poorly run government system.

Report this comment
#36) On July 25, 2009 at 1:24 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009

Implications of Cutting Cardiologists' Payments

 

It's been interesting to hear my cardiology colleagues in the community discuss what the proposed CMS cuts might mean for their patients and the implications for therapy access for patients requiring cardiovascular services.

In one local group, 40% of the cardiologists are over age 55. Now imagine cutting their practice income between 11 and 42% this year, with the potential for additional cuts yearly afterward. Recall that payments collected must first pay for office overhead: staff, collection personnel, lease payments, rent or mortgage, taxes, etc. These expenses do not go down annually. Cardiologists' take-home pay will be the item ultimately affected by these cuts. If a cardiologist makes, say, an average of $350,000 and one assumes a 50% overhead cost for his practice before the cuts, then $175,000 must first go to support his overhead. If income to the cardiologist's office is reduced 20% (on average) in 2010, then of the total $525,000 that was collected last year will translate to only $420,000. Since the practice expenses remain (at best) constant, the cardiologist's salary will be $245,000. ($350,000-$105,000 = $245,000). 

Most internists and primary care doctors are quietly smiling right now. "Serves 'em right!" they snicker under their breath.

But if we consider this threat, is there an incentive to order fewer tests to offset their losses as they struggle to pay their kid's college educations? 

No.

Further, recall the fact those "rich" cardiologists do not finish their training until age 30, on average, and that about a third of them are over age 55. We have to wonder if many will opt for early retirement instead of tolerating the bureaucratic hassles and salary cuts. After all, the nice thing about an MD degree is there are plenty of other options besides clinical care. 

Alternately, in exchange for the dramatic salary reductions, they might demand a better life-style with better hours. If so, 90-minute door-to-balloon times might not be so easy to come by for hospitals. ER's might not find cardiologists quite so available, too, since the added 8% added to E&M codes won't offset the economic losses enough to warrant this extra workload. Hospitals' quality ratings will likely fall as they fail to meet their benchmarks and Medicare payments will dwindle to them, too.

While these cuts might help the Medicare budget very slightly and look good to policy pundits who have never had to go to a hospital at 2AM for an acute MI (heart attack), it's an entirely different thing in real life. Regretably, it's often the patients that lose.

Is this the price our system is willing to pay? 

Perhaps. These cuts are certainly on the table. (Warning: pdf, 1277 pages).

But one thing's for sure, with these cuts will come consequences. Given the fact that cardiovascular problems are one of the most common ailments in man and a large number of cardiologists are approaching retirement age, these are going to be every tough times for doctors, hospitals and patients alike.

Is this who should be affected most by our current reform plans?

I wonder.

-Wes

POSTED BY DRWES AT 7/14/2009 03:54:00 PM  

I wonder if the President's recent lack of success in forcing through his health care bill may have contributed to the rise in the stock markets.  If the Health Care bill fails maybe Cap and Trade will also fail.  Ironic that the death of these two bill may allow patients and small business to live. 

Report this comment
#37) On August 02, 2009 at 4:57 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

DEADLY DOCTORS - ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE  

 New York Post

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Last updated: 1:13 am
July 24, 2009
Posted: 1:03 am
July 24, 2009

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Report this comment
#38) On August 02, 2009 at 5:01 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

Health Reform and Cancer

 


By MYRNA ULFIK

 

I have been battling non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, an incurable blood cancer, for the past nine years. Last year, I was also diagnosed with uterine cancer.

I didn’t run to Canada for treatment. Medicare took care of my needs right here in New York City. To endure, I just need the freedom to choose my insurance, my doctors, and get the diagnostic scans and care I need. And one more thing: I need hope that a treatment will be developed that can control my diseases the way insulin controls diabetes.

Every cancer patient needs these things, especially hope. But the government’s plan to reform the health-care system in this country threatens all of this—particularly the development of new treatments.

When I was first diagnosed in 2000 I had chemotherapy. It put me in remission, but nearly killed me.

Three years later the lymphoma was back and I faced more chemo. This is so often the pattern of cancer: recurring disease and repeated chemo. In the end patients often die not from the disease, but from the treatments.

I took a different path, seeking a cancer vaccine. One had been developed at Stanford University 12 years earlier that had given 90% of patients very long remissions and cured some entirely. Unlike chemotherapy, there were no severe side effects.

But I couldn’t get the vaccine because the Food and Drug Administration required another trial that would take nine more years. Over-regulation has kept this treatment from patients for 21 years, as some 24,000 lymphoma patients died each year.

My husband and I searched the Internet and found another vaccine being tested at Freiburg University in Germany. That vaccine has helped me avoid chemotherapy for years. My oncologist says he’s never seen another patient do so well with the type of lymphoma I have.

I am still here because my care was managed by doctors—not a government agency. My doctors do what the bureaucracy can’t: They see me as a human being.

Patient-as-person will be a lost concept under the new health-care plan, where treatments will be based not upon individual patient needs, but upon what’s best for everyone. So cancer drugs for seniors might take second place to jungle gyms and farmers’ markets—so-called preventive care—which are covered under both the House and Senate versions of the health bill.

The stimulus package passed earlier this year allocated $1.1 billion for hundreds of “Comparative Effectiveness Research” studies. This project will compare all treatment options for a host of diseases in order to develop a database to guide doctors’ decisions. Research of this sort typically takes years. But the data will likely be hastily drawn conclusions that reflect the view of the government agencies that fund the studies: Cheap therapies are just as good as expensive ones.

In order to finance health-care reform, Democrats in Congress have proposed cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. Yet in his press conference last Wednesday, President Barack Obama denied that Medicare benefits would be cut. He has surrounded himself with advisers who believe otherwise.

Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original pick to head Health and Human Services, argues in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” that we should accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.” Mr. Daschle blames the “use and overuse of new technologies and treatments” for runaway health-care costs. He suggests a Federal Health Board modeled after the British “NICE” board to make decisions on health-care rationing.

But the British system is infamous for denying state-of-the-art drugs to cancer patients. Thus cancer-survival rates in Britain are far below those in America, just as they are in Canada.

Canadian cancer patients told to wait months for treatment and diagnostic scans frequently go south and pay out-of-pocket for care in the United States. A number of Quebeckers even sued their government for violating their “right to life and security” under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada’s Supreme Court has acknowledged the pervasive rationing that occurs. In the 2005 case Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) , the majority opinion stated: “The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”

Despite such evidence, the Obama plan is likely to target various treatments—including radiology scans—in order to cut costs. I survived this long because my radiologist examines each of my scans with me in detail.

One of those scans also saved my life by picking up unsuspected uterine cancer. The congressional majority seems blissfully unaware that all cancer patients need those scans to monitor their diseases.

Also uneasy with the cost of medical progress is Dr. David Blumenthal, Mr. Obama’s new head of Health Information Technology. It is not reassuring that he stresses that two-thirds of the annual increases in health spending result from medical innovation, as he has written in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Cancer patients need nothing more than such innovation. Yes, developing more effective, less toxic treatments is expensive. The prices of new cancer therapies reflect the billion-dollar cost of developing each new drug. But such treatments can be life-saving, as they have been for me.

Despite its warts, our system works. Carelessly tinkering with it will have a world-wide penalty—the stifling of new drug development. What company would spend a billion dollars to develop a drug that will not be reimbursed by the new health plan? This would be a direct, devastating blow to the most vulnerable Americans.

In spite of the president’s assurances, there is every sign that this plan will be financed by deep cuts to Medicare, which, like the public option, will limit payments for specialists, radiology scans, and cutting-edge cancer drugs. These are prime targets because they are more expensive than other services. But are we really expected to forgo new medical technology and return to the cancer care of the 1970s?

When members of Congress are asked if they will opt for the public plan, they say no. That’s for the rest of us.

The number of Americans who have cancer exceeds 10 million. It’s time for cancer patients and their families to remind those on Capitol Hill that health-care reform is a matter of life and death for us.

—Ms. Ulfik is a writer in New York.

Report this comment
#39) On August 12, 2009 at 12:52 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

The One Thing

The horror of eugenics happened; what can we learn from that mistake?

Glenn Beck

August 11, 2009

 

Report this comment
#40) On August 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM, TMFDiogenes (92.20) wrote:

The WSJ editorial The End of Private Health Insurance - WSJ.com is sneaky. The writers fail to mention that the source for their figures -- The Lewin Group -- is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. That's bad, misleading journalism.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958544583612437.html

http://www.lewin.com/WhyLewin/AboutUs/

You should see the daily show's coverage of Glenn Beck talking out of both sides of his mouth:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation 

 

Report this comment
#41) On September 28, 2009 at 1:16 AM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

WSJ OPINION


AUGUST 27, 2009, 12:52 P.M. ET

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief  

White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care.

... Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.

"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).

Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.

Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."

View Full Image

Associated Press

This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel's views.

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Is this what Americans want?

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

 

Report this comment
#42) On October 06, 2009 at 10:33 PM, uclayoda87 (30.59) wrote:

 WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OCTOBER 6, 2009

The War on Specialists ObamaCare punishes cardiology and oncology to finance GPs.

In President Obama's Washington, medical specialists are slightly more popular than the H1N1 virus. Compared to bread-and-butter primary care doctors, specialists cost more to train and make more use of expensive procedures and technology—and therefore cost the government more money. Even so, the quiet war Democrats are waging on specialists is astonishing.

From Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus's health-care bill to changes the Administration is pushing in Medicare, Democrats are systematically attacking specific medical fields like cardiology and oncology. With almost no scrutiny, they're trying to engineer a "cheaper" system so that government can afford to buy health care for all—even if the price is fewer and less innovative ways of extending and improving lives.

***

Take a provision in the Baucus bill that would punish any physician whose "resource use" is considered too high. Beginning in 2015, Medicare would rank doctors against their peers based on how much they cost the program—and then automatically cut all payments by 5% to anyone who falls into the 90th percentile or above. In practice, this rule will only apply to specialists.

Since there will always be a missing chair when the music stops, every year one of 10 physicians will be punished if he orders too many tests, performs too many procedures or prescribes too many drugs—whether or not the treatments result in better patient outcomes. The 5% fine is substantial given that Medicare's price controls already pay only 83 cents on the private dollar.

In Medicare, meanwhile, the Administration is using regulation to change how doctors are paid to benefit general practitioners, internists and family physicians. In next year's fee schedule, they'll see higher payments on the order of 6% to 8%. The loose consensus is that the U.S. does have too few primary care doctors—less than 5% of medical students are entering the field—in part because they're underpaid.

Fair enough. But this boost for GPs comes at the expense of certain specialties. The 2010 rules, which will be finalized next month, visit an 11% overall cut on cardiology and 19% on radiation oncology. They're targets only because of cost: Two-thirds of morbidity or mortality among Medicare patients owes to cancer or heart disease.

The way Medicare works is that Congress decides each year how much it wants to spend on doctors, period. If one area of medicine receives a larger slice of this pie, another must accept a smaller one. The portion sizes are determined using a formula known as Relative Value Units, or RVUs. Medicare assigns an RVU to each of 7,500 billable services—in 2008, a colonoscopy earned 5.64 of these units, a hip replacement 37.66. Then it multiplies a doctor's total RVUs by some dollar factor, currently about $36, and cuts a check.

The chunks Team Obama took out of cardiology RVUs are especially drastic. The basic tools of heart specialists—echocardiograms (stress tests) and catheterizations—are slashed by 42% and 24%, respectively. Jack Lewin, who heads the American College of Cardiology, said in an interview that the crackdown will cause "a horrible disruption" that will force many community and independent practices to close their doors, lay off staff or make senior patients wait days or weeks for tests and services.

Cancer doctors get hit because the Administration believes specialists order too many MRIs and CT scans. Certain kinds of diagnostic imaging lose 24% under new assumptions that machines are in use 90% of the time, up from 50%. There isn't a radiologist in America running an MRI 10.8 hours out of 12, unless he's lining up patients on a conveyor belt. But claiming scanners are used far more often than they really are lets the Administration "score" spending cuts.

And this change is applied to all expensive equipment, not just MRIs and CTs, so payments for antitumor radiation therapy will fall by up to 44%. The American Society for Radiation Oncology says it "will have a devastating effect on cancer patients' access to care."

One priority of the Baucus bill is to require the executive branch to wreak this kind of devastation every year, not just when a Democrat is President. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to search out "potentially misvalued" RVUs, meaning those "for which there has been the fastest growth" or "that have experienced substantial changes in practice expenses." In other words, any specialty that grows too much must be targeted.

It's important to understand that these are "cuts" that don't actually cut any spending; the RVUs merely redistribute it from one medical bucket to another. In this case, Team Obama is sending a message to the medical community about its political priorities. The fee schedule is designed to avoid wild year-over-year payment swings, but HHS justified its decision with a flimsy survey whose data it won't release and whose results can't be replicated. Dr. Lewin told us that both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and budget director Peter Orszag refuse to meet with him to discuss the topic.

We have nothing against primary care physicians, and clearly the country could use more of them. But then, it could probably use a lot more doctors, including specialists, as the boomers age and the prevalence of obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases rises. The increase in specialists has tracked advances over 50 years in medical science and technology. Democrats look at these advancements and see only the costs, not the benefits.

***

Markets are supposed to determine the composition of the workforce, not a command medical economy run out of Washington. It is perfectly insane to support one type of doctor by punishing others on a flawed theory about cost-control. The press passes all this off as routine when it bothers to notice, but we suspect our media colleagues would show more interest if Messrs. Obama and Baucus were deciding how much journalists should be paid and what they should cover.

If Democrats are going to stomp on specialists, they should at least be open about it. Then again, all Americans might take a different view of health-care "reform" if they understood that it means snuffing out the best medicine.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners