Political Discussions
Rationing is starting already...
Posted by anticsrocks • 9/01/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: health care, obama, rationing, reform, socialized medicine
President Obama wants to cut Medicare already. His administration is proposing cutting payments to Cardiologists and Oncologists.
This is what everyone opposed to health care reform as proposed by the Democrats has been saying. When you lump everyone in on one budget, you cannot boost care to one group without taking away from another.
"An Obama administration plan to cut Medicare payments to heart and cancer doctors by $1.4 billion next year is generating a backlash that’s undermining the president’s health-care overhaul.
Our 37,000 members are fighting tooth and nail on these other issues rather than fighting thoughtfully for expanding access,” said Jack Lewin, 63, chief executive officer of the Washington-based American College of Cardiology.
The cuts could have the unintended consequence of rationing care, especially in rural regions with a large number of Medicare patients, doctors said. In other areas, specialists may decide to pull out of Medicare, or ask patients to make up the difference with higher out-of-pocket payments, said Alfred Bove, president of the American College of Cardiology.
“A fair number of cardiologists are looking at the accounting and saying ‘we can’t afford it,’” Bove said in a telephone interview.
Some oncologists in rural areas may stop offering chemotherapy in the office, forcing patients to travel to more- distant hospitals, said Allen S. Lichter, 63, CEO of the 27,000- member American Society of Clinical Oncology in Alexandria, Virginia."
Rationing, and we haven't even gotten a bill to vote on yet.
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=apv3pcTOWVjk
User Comments
-
Anyone else ever notice that doctors always "fight tooth and nail" when their bottom lines are threatened, but have quietly rolled over and accepted the fact that insurance companies override their medical judgment and force substandard care? The bottom line, apparently, is more important that the preservation of life or providing adequate treatment.-
No, I never noticed that Madame. Gee I guess their wanting to be paid for their services is just atrocious; Physicians are fighting insurance companies daily also.
I believe the point of my post was that when you group EVERYONE in the same pool of funds, you cannot increase services to one segment or group without taking away from another. THAT is what I was pointing out, and THAT is why socialized medicine never works. -
"and THAT is why socialized medicine never works."
Donald, I don't think it's accurate to say that socialized medicine never works. A more accurate statement might be that socialized medicine has problems - but look at the problems we have with our privatized insurance.
In Britain, someone in, say, Birmingham might not recieve the same level of care as in West London, but they all receive care. How many people under our system have no coverage because they can't afford insurance? How many avoid treatment because they can't afford co-pays or deductibles? How many go into debt over out-of-network charges?
The USA is the only industrialized nation without health care as a right of citizenship. Personally I think it's embarrasing. I support a socialized system because I've experienced them firsthand - not only in Britain but in France too. But universal coverage doesn't necessarily have to be run by the government. The Netherlands (and I believe Germany) have health coverage through insurance, but the government regulates the insurance companies, forbidding them to deny coverage (as our companies do for pre-existing conditions). Government subsidies prevent those whose clients make a lot of claims, from taking a loss. It's still private but everyone is covered. -
"How many people under our system have no coverage because they can't afford insurance?"
If you go to the Census figures, you will see that the answer to this question is not the 47 million Americans that the MSM repeats ad nauseum. The number is around 10-15 million long-term uninsured. So we are to tear apart the whole system that 285 million people use to cover those 10-15 million? Why not just extend Medicaid or Medicare to cover them?
"The USA is the only industrialized nation without health care as a right of citizenship."
A "right", really? To be a right then it has to be understood that it is something conferred onto us by someone else. Our founding fathers saw only our unalienable rights to be those given us by our Creator. I am not aware of our Creator giving us the right to health care? Where do we draw the line? Do we have a right to food? A car? A home? If so, who gives us those things? If you call health care a right, then you are saying that someone is responsible to pay for that health care, and also to provide that health care. Whom? Why should some citizens pay for the health care for the estimated (by the Census Bureau) 17 million people that can afford, but do not want health insurance? That demographic would rather buy an iPhone or the latest ringtones, wide screen televisions, etc...
Health care is not a right. -
"Our founding fathers saw only our unalienable rights to be those given us by our Creator."
I don't believe that our "Creator" conferred upon us any rights. The Rights that we have were thought up by the humans who founded this country, in a different era. Our founding fathers saw no problems with slavery because it was considered acceptable back then. But time change and we should progress with them. Modern medical technology should not only be available to those who can afford it.
If we have a "Right" to own guns to protect our lives, I see no reason why we can't have a "Right" to medical care to protect our lives. -
Then we disagree on this.
-
True, but we have freedom to express our opinions, and I think that's great.
I hope you're not offended because that wasn't my intention
-
"The bottom line... is more important that the preservation of life or providing adequate treatment."
A statement which, from this very story, Obama completely agrees with. Apparently it is more important for Americans to have money to buy plasma televisions then to respect the elderly and take care of the sick. See, he's cutting the payments to these doctors to drive them out of business, to free them up for other sectors, and leave the cancer and heart disease patients out in the cold. The fact that he's cutting with a grotesquely blunt knife (hurting 20-year-olds with Leukemia as much as 80-year-olds with Colon Cancer, though I suppose the second group is larger) he apparently doesn't mind. It is worth noting that Corporation comes from the word Corporate, or common good.
@NT77: "I hope you're not offended because that wasn't my intention" LOL. -
Not at all NT. I am glad to have civil discussions. That is what makes America great.
-
-
-
The article talks about a completely different set of cuts. Basically it is an effort to move more resources on preventing vs. treating; generalist vs. specialist. The net effect could be rationing. -
No, as xmarks said, these cuts are nothing to do with your MSLSD article, Agit8r. They are proposed cuts to Physicians.
-
To be clear on the rationing, the effect may be rationing one service but providing more of another (treating vs. preventing). For anyone here to suggest the NET EFFECT will be rationing (i.e. more services reduced than services added) would require more information than presented here.
-
-
Putting the misleading nature of the OP aside, I thought Republicans considered Medicare to be socialized medicine and wanted to let it die. Oh wait, that was before this summer when they made a tactical change to defend this Democratic program, this achievement of President Johnson's Great Society. Ahem.-
First of all mark I am an Conservative, NOT a Republican. Secondly, to take Medicare away would be a breach of the public trust at this point. Thirdly, Medicare is not truly socialized medicine, it is a socialized method of paying for medicine. And lastly, how is my OP misleading? As xmarks said, these cuts will in all likelihood lead to rationing.
Now why not try and focus instead of just attacking? You forget how to debate or discuss?
-
-
"... not truly socialized medicine, it is a socialized method of paying for medicine."
do I really need to point out the irony here?-
Why not? There is no difference between physicians who bill the Government and those who get ALL their pay from the Government? From those who work in private facilities and those who work in Government facilities?
Why only think in one dimension? -
the irony is that what is currently being proposed is "not truly socialized medicine, it is a socialized method of paying for medicine."
that is ironic
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
