Quote:
Original post by Chris Reynolds
Here is just one of the bill's many problems that I see:
"Mandatory end of life counseling" - If you are over the age of 60 you will be required to attend a counseling to determine whether or not prescriptions or procedures are worth the government's money.
Denying treatment based on age?
Do any of you really think that this bill can be paid for by "efficiencies"? And are these efficiencies really just cutting corners with the elderly?
How much are you willing to pay for your health? Let's say you have a medical condition and a curative treatment costs $1 million, but accepting that treatment will increase your current monthly health insurance premiums by 50%. The condition is not fatal; if you elect not to accept the treatment you will be forced to manage it via medication and intermittent doctor visits, but your premiums will not change. Will you accept the treatment?
Now, let's say the situation is terminal and you have 6 months to live but the treatment will save you life. Problem is the cost is now $2 million, and your premiums will rise by 75%. Will you accept the treatment?
Let's now say the disease is terminal and you have 6 months to live. There is a medication available that will probably extend your life by another 3 months, but you'll be dead within a year no matter what. The medication is extremely new and must be administered surgically, so the costs for it total $1 million. Whether your premiums would go up is obviously irrelevant, since you'll be dead in a year. Will you accept the treatment?
Finally, let's say someone else has the disease, the treatment will only extend their life by 3 months, but
your treatments will go up because of it (because the treatment is so expensive and rare, and that cost has to be recouped by your insurer). Are you willing to pay a 5% higher premium so someone else can live for an extra 3 months? 10%? 50% higher? How much of an increase of the cost burden on you is too much for someone else's health?
Insurance companies already do this. Insurance premiums have been rising four times as fast as incomes, and despite having paid on time for a protracted period the insurer can still refuse you coverage or deny access to a procedure it doesn't deem cost effective.
The current health proposals are actually too conservative and ineffective, because the "leftist" Democrats are actually scared centrists and the "right-leaning" Republicans are actually far-right reactionaries. Fixing our health care system requires layers of changes. It won't be enough to simply shift the bill around; we have to focus more on prevention than emergency treatment, because emergency treatment is far more expensive - keeping people out of emergency rooms in the first place is much cheaper. We will have to quantify publicly and unambiguously what treatments and procedures are not cost-effective for a tax-funded system; individual wealth and charities will have to pick up the slack in the case of extremely expensive operations for rare cases. We will have to put pressure on pharmaceutical companies via the collective bargaining power of a public health option bloc - "Wal-Mart 'em," so to speak - to lower costs for drugs.
Many of the criticisms being leveled at the
idea of public health care ring particularly hollow considering that we already experience those same problems
now. "You'll have to wait weeks to see your doctor!" Have you tried to book an appointment with your doctor recently? The receptionist tells you when there's an opening, which can be over a month away. Et cetera.
My only criticism is that we need real, balls-to-the-wall reform. This half-ass pablum is not what I voted and paid taxes for.
