Published in the New York Post on July 31, 2009
The health-reform debate on Capitol Hill is skipping over the key issue: “Universal insurance” means less care for people who have coverage now — especially the elderly.
And the “compromises” now under way only make the problem worse.
Here’s a point that’s no surprise except to the “reformers”: People with insurance use more health care.
President Obama seeks to cover 50 million new people. Where are the extra doctors, nurses and so on going to come from? Neither the administration nor anyone on the Hill has proposed anything to add to the supply of medical services even as they plan vastly to increase the demand.
The politicians are playing a Washington game — compromising on false or tangential issues while failing to address the central one.
It doesn’t matter if you reduce or eliminate the mandate for employers to provide coverage, if you’re still insuring more people without adding medical personnel and other resources. Same story for whether you replace the “public option” government-run plan with government-run “co-ops.”
More, all the bills come up with cash to cover their huge costs by ordering cuts in Medicare — cuts that Congress could reverse only by affirmative majority votes. Basically, the government will be paying doctors and providers even less to treat the elderly — at a time when countless doctors are starting to refuse new Medicare patients.
More demand; no added supply; Medicare cuts: It all adds up to rationing — lower-quality medical care for most Americans, especially for the elderly.
A doctor in Massachusetts — where an Obama-style plan is already in place — recently told us that she now has to read 60 mammograms a day in the time she once spent on 45. “It keeps me up at night,” she told us, “that I might make a mistake, I am so rushed.”
For the elderly, it means less care, period. A federal health board will sit in judgment of medical procedures and protocols and impose guidelines on all providers for when to withhold certain kinds of care.
For example, the drug Avastin is widely used in America to treat advanced colon cancer. But it costs $50,000 a year — so Canada’s national-health system doesn’t permit its use. As a result, 41 percent of colon-cancer patients in Canada die each year, as opposed to 32 percent in the United States. (Canada’s average eight-month wait for colonoscopies, another result of national-health rationing, also contributes to the problem.)
Members of Congress will be home through August to test public opinion. It’s up to us to give them an earful.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think the President is going to push this through regardless of the lack of public support for the government option or non-profit co-ops. This isn’t about delivering better health care. Every time he says health care you should hear “insurance”. If he can force people into a universal insurance program, subsidizing low income earners, it gives his party a permanent majority. The government is already deciding which business’ are winners and losers, this program will give them the ability to decide winners & losers by constituency. Today, anyone who needs health care can walk into a hospital and be treated. Tomorrow, under Obamacare, that is highly unlikely.
[…] Anyone who wants to believe that Obama and the democrat’s agenda isn’t a public option that will ultimately elimate private employer provided insurance is kidding not only you, but themselves. (Obama S.E.I.U. forum on health care 3/24/07, Barney […]
I would agree with JimH that this program will be forced through Congress even if there is no support amongst the populace. I believe Dick Morris indicates a parliamentary procedure called Reconciliation (where only 51% of the vote is required to pass legislation) will be used to push the bill through Congress. JimH is correct in that any hospital that accepts Medicare money has to provide treatment if you are not insured.
Obama is following Ton Daschle’s book. In that book he says seniors are the cause of the health care problem. I believe the specific example was most of the health care cost are from end of life days. Eliminate the senior issue (i.e., end of life days) and the problem goes away. It has an added benefit in that it helps the Social Security issue. Kill of the seniors and those benefits decrease. For example, my father had bypass surgery at age 74 and lived to 90. If you deny him the procedure and he lives probably only to 75/77.
[…] [SIZE=3]‘REFORM’ AT SENIORS’ EXPENSE[/SIZE] By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 08.3.2009 Published in the New York Post on July 31, 2009 The health-reform debate on Capitol Hill is skipping over the key issue: “Universal insurance” means less care for people who have coverage now — especially the elderly. And the “compromises” now under way only make the problem worse. Here’s a point that’s no surprise except to the “reformers”: People with insurance use more health care. President Obama seeks to cover 50 million new people. Where are the extra doctors, nurses and so on going to come from? Neither the administration nor anyone on the Hill has proposed anything to add to the supply of medical services even as they plan vastly to increase the demand. The politicians are playing a Washington game — compromising on false or tangential issues while failing to address the central one. It doesn’t matter if you reduce or eliminate the mandate for employers to provide coverage, if you’re still insuring more people without adding medical personnel and other resources. Same story for whether you replace the “public option” government-run plan with government-run “co-ops.” More, all the bills come up with cash to cover their huge costs by ordering cuts in Medicare — cuts that Congress could reverse only by affirmative majority votes. Basically, the government will be paying doctors and providers even less to treat the elderly — at a time when countless doctors are starting to refuse new Medicare patients. More demand; no added supply; Medicare cuts: It all adds up to rationing — lower-quality medical care for most Americans, especially for the elderly. A doctor in Massachusetts — where an Obama-style plan is already in place — recently told us that she now has to read 60 mammograms a day in the time she once spent on 45. “It keeps me up at night,” she told us, “that I might make a mistake, I am so rushed.” For the elderly, it means less care, period. A federal health board will sit in judgment of medical procedures and protocols and impose guidelines on all providers for when to withhold certain kinds of care. For example, the drug Avastin is widely used in America to treat advanced colon cancer. But it costs $50,000 a year — so Canada’s national-health system doesn’t permit its use. As a result, 41 percent of colon-cancer patients in Canada die each year, as opposed to 32 percent in the United States. (Canada’s average eight-month wait for colonoscopies, another result of national-health rationing, also contributes to the problem.) Members of Congress will be home through August to test public opinion. It’s up to us to give them an earful. […]
[…] Congress will be home through August to test public opinion. It’s up to us to give them an earful. The Source __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How May I Help You? PM me through this link if clicking […]
Dick’s column is correct in all respects. People will not get the healthcare they need and will be eliminated by the fact that they won’t get the care they need. There won’t be enough physician’s to give care and since the pharmaceutical companies are in the bag with Obama, medicines will be rationed also. This is all in the main scheme of things for the evil Obama to take this country over. He already has a real good start and he will not stop until he has all the control and we are just puppets controlled by him. Obama wants a new Constitution because he certainly is violating the current one and he doesn’t care what it says either. He is not religious and does believe he is the one we should follow and not the laws given to us by God. Wake up people, this man has been able to get a lot of followers you are very loyal to him and many of them have been given positions that enforce their loyalty to him. They are their to get us into place and to be submissive. These are the saddest days of our Country, Constitution and our Loving God.
vickie
I don’t think I am incorrect in my belief that Obama and his cronies (terrorists, etc.) are trying to restructure the whole U.S. to their agenda. To the states that have liberal senators, I say speak up or shut up.
[…] Morris writes that ObamaCare will mean less and inferior care for the elderly and will, in effect, repeal Medicare. Click here to watch a 30-second ad on how elderly healthcare […]
[…] (more…) […]