Welcome to Socialist Health Care
When I was a kid I read the
books 1984 and Animal Farm. I believe these two books shaped my view of
government and it's role in society. I also grew up with a hate for
communism mostly because to me it seemed a lot like what was happening in
those two books. All I want out of my government is to allow me to
live free and to protect me from those who choose to limit my freedom.
What happens when your government becomes the one that starts limiting
your freedom? Blomberg has an opinion piece up right now that goes into
the hidden agenda of the stimulus package and how it's being used to
make us all a little less free.
In the great stimulus plan being prepped to pass the Senate today is a measure to allow the government to have every single individuals (citizen or not) heath information in a federal database. On the surface this only sounds like a slight lose of liberty because now your health is not private between you and your doctor. I'm sure the government would never use this data against you.
I know in Obama's speech on prime time all he mentioned was a central government system hosting your medical history but there's more. The "stimulus" bill also contains verbiage for the creation of a new government agency: the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This agency is deemed with the responsibility to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective." Well, that is an interesting statement. If your doctor doesn't follow the federal guidelines there will be a penalty. That part is written open ended so the penalty will be decided by the new HHS secretary.
The article does give an example of how this model has worked in England and this next part is a direct quote from the article: "In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macaulay degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. " I can't wait to get this in our health care system.
It seems that Obama is a huge fan of Tom Dashele's heath care plans. Dashele wrote a book about how we can save the health care system in the US by lower costs. In Dashele's book he talks of slowing down innovation in health care because these experimental drugs are running up the prices for everyone. In the book Dashele " 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. " It seems to him "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
I have my own European health care horror story. In Denmark you can't buy Tylenol or Advil over the counter, you need a prescription. A friend of ours moved there with their infant son. When he was teething she went to the doctor to get something to help the child with the pain. The doctor said no, it was not necessary. As a parent I find this shocking because why can't I give my child some Motrin that cost a few buys for a bottle? My wife and her friends made a care package and sent infant Tylenol, cough medicine and Advil to this mother.
Here is a story from when I was in school. There was a seminarian there that needed a heart transplant. The procedure was performed and he was much better. Unfortunately the cost of the drugs that kept his body from rejecting the donor heart was extremely expensive and the health insurance wouldn't cover the entire cost. Thankfully people and the church helped him pay for his medication. Under Obama's plan would he have qualified for the transplant? Should this decision be in the hands of a third part concerned about keeping costs low?
Do we really want European health care in the US? If you can afford to get the best medical treatment should the government decide if it's not cost effective or not? I really don't think we want government making life or death decision for ourselves, our parents or our families. I'm sure the liberals out there will defend Obama's plans and will be good sheep following their sheppard. I wonder if Obama was thinking about health care when he said in his speech that some entitlements would need to decreased.
Source: bloomberg
In the great stimulus plan being prepped to pass the Senate today is a measure to allow the government to have every single individuals (citizen or not) heath information in a federal database. On the surface this only sounds like a slight lose of liberty because now your health is not private between you and your doctor. I'm sure the government would never use this data against you.
I know in Obama's speech on prime time all he mentioned was a central government system hosting your medical history but there's more. The "stimulus" bill also contains verbiage for the creation of a new government agency: the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This agency is deemed with the responsibility to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective." Well, that is an interesting statement. If your doctor doesn't follow the federal guidelines there will be a penalty. That part is written open ended so the penalty will be decided by the new HHS secretary.
The article does give an example of how this model has worked in England and this next part is a direct quote from the article: "In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macaulay degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. " I can't wait to get this in our health care system.
It seems that Obama is a huge fan of Tom Dashele's heath care plans. Dashele wrote a book about how we can save the health care system in the US by lower costs. In Dashele's book he talks of slowing down innovation in health care because these experimental drugs are running up the prices for everyone. In the book Dashele " 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. " It seems to him "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
I have my own European health care horror story. In Denmark you can't buy Tylenol or Advil over the counter, you need a prescription. A friend of ours moved there with their infant son. When he was teething she went to the doctor to get something to help the child with the pain. The doctor said no, it was not necessary. As a parent I find this shocking because why can't I give my child some Motrin that cost a few buys for a bottle? My wife and her friends made a care package and sent infant Tylenol, cough medicine and Advil to this mother.
Here is a story from when I was in school. There was a seminarian there that needed a heart transplant. The procedure was performed and he was much better. Unfortunately the cost of the drugs that kept his body from rejecting the donor heart was extremely expensive and the health insurance wouldn't cover the entire cost. Thankfully people and the church helped him pay for his medication. Under Obama's plan would he have qualified for the transplant? Should this decision be in the hands of a third part concerned about keeping costs low?
Do we really want European health care in the US? If you can afford to get the best medical treatment should the government decide if it's not cost effective or not? I really don't think we want government making life or death decision for ourselves, our parents or our families. I'm sure the liberals out there will defend Obama's plans and will be good sheep following their sheppard. I wonder if Obama was thinking about health care when he said in his speech that some entitlements would need to decreased.
Source: bloomberg
Comments