Government-Run Health Care? First, Do No Harm

First, do no harm. That is the oath taken by doctor's before they practice medicine. It should be required of all government officials and representatives in congress to take the same oath. Nationalized health care has been the topic of debate for quite some time although no consensus has been formed. I watched the ABC special "Prescription for Health Care" and was not surprised that the details of the plan were not discussed. Here are the problems in our current health care system as outlined by the President:

Uninsured Americans do not utilize primary care or prevention options opting to use the emergency room for minor ailments.
Unnecessary tests, drugs and procedures are being administered and paid for through medicare and Medicaid and is bankrupting the system.
Doctors and hospitals are being reimbursed for each procedure performed without any consideration for quality of outcome.

Now let's break these problems down starting with:
Uninsured Americans. I agree that the emergency room is not the most cost effective place to treat minor ailments or injury, but in America we are bound by law to treat patients who do not have the ability to pay. Unfortunately that means going to the ER. I agree that this policy needs to change. Obama's plan for this is mandating individuals and businesses to purchase insurance whether it be private or government run or face tax penalties. Forcing businesses to provide health care coverage will cause even higher unemployment in an already weak economy. Individuals will be required to pay for insurance that they currently chose not to purchase. So instead of getting free health care from the ER, individuals will be forced to purchase insurance whether they want to or not. This is supposed to encourage preventive care which in turn will cut down of costs but the Congressional Budget Office is not convinced.

Unnecessary Tests, Drugs and Procedures
"It won't be easy making those decisions."
"I don't think we can make judgments based on people's spirit."
"End of life care is one the most difficult sets of decisions we are going to have to make."
" I don't want bureaucracy making those decision but understand they are already being made in one way or another through medicaid, medicare or private insurers."


Those quotes of President Obama expressing his beliefs that the elderly do not deserve to have their life span increased days or even months because they will die anyway or because they are very old is very disturbing. He even went on to say that this is what's bankrupting medicare and if the evidence shows that prolonged treatment, additional surgery or loading up on tests does not prove to help the patient i.e. cure them, then maybe they should just accept the fact that they should just take the pain killer rather than have the surgery. As someone in my mid 40's and a mother in her 70's this kind of attitude toward end of life medical decisions is unacceptable. Saying that the government will provide quality health care at a much lower cost by eliminating certain procedures is an oxymoron. To say they will sacrifice care that could prolong life by days or even weeks to control costs is barbaric. It would be the same as saying if you can't pay for it to bad, die already.

Change How Doctors and Hospitals are Reimbursed
The Obama plan would change how doctors and hospitals are paid. Currently they are paid per procedure without regard to the quality of outcome. Obama believes that doctors and hospitals do not have the incentive to reduce the amount of procedures that is offered a patient so therefore they do not make the best cost effective decisions when it comes to different forms of treatment. If the government changes the way they are reimbursed through quality of outcome how will that be measured? One example was if a patient is re-admitted a number of times for the same ailment then the hospital will not receive payment because the quality of outcome was bad. What about patient responsibility? He went on to say that the current incentive of reimbursement prevent good decisions of not performing some tests or procedures and are outdated and make it more expensive to provide adequate health care. Now the goal is adequate health care. How can a government agency not be able to make decisions based on one's spirit of life but can measure quality of outcome? Will private insurers have the same option of not paying if the outcome is proved to be unsuccessful? You might think that this sounds good but what will happen if this is put into place? Quality of care will diminish because there will be fewer numbers of doctors and hospitals providing care.

What are the Costs?
The congressional budget office estimates up to 2 trillion dollars over 10 years to insure 46 millions uninsured individuals and that number includes illegal aliens and people who could qualify for medicaid but chose not to. They will place additional regulations on private carriers to restrict them from declining coverage for preexisting conditions which will raise the cost of private insurance paid by individuals and businesses. At the same time the government sponsored health care plan will be cheaper because it will be subsidized by surcharges on the rich. Mandates placed on private insurers to provide the same coverage at the same cost to everyone regardless of preexisting health conditions will drive up costs making it even more difficult to compete against the government plan. When Obama said you could keep your current coverage what he does not tell you is that the government plan through regulation will eventually put them out of business. There goes your choice of keeping you current coverage. Obama said "....they won't make as much profit on each insurer but still will be profitable." Oh really? Since when is it the governments role to regulate profits? The goal is to drive all private carriers out of business so everyone has to go on the government plan. When that is accomplished government will control treatment options and charge whatever they want i.e. raise your taxes even more. Malpractice insurance premiums are a direct affront to health care costs in this nation and yet that fact is ignored by this plan. If controlling costs is the key to health care reform then tort reform must be passed.

Universal health care will not be free. Quite the contrary. Mandates on business and individuals takes away the right to chose. Obama said "Those who oppose this must ask themselves what they are defending?" How about freedom to chose whether or not I receive medical care that could prolong my life regardless of age, costs or outcome, freedom to chose your insurer or chose not to be covered and the belief that the free market guarantees competition as oppose to government regulating private insurers out of business. There are alternatives to this plan. Please go to the website at www.heritage.org to get the facts for yourself. This is too important to ignore because your life will depend on it.