![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
But that will never happen.
Aug. 12th, 2009 12:59 amI am really not liking what I'm hearing about the latest "health care reform".
President Obama cabinet appointee Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, according to a New York Post op ed article by Betsy McCauley, former Lt. Governor of New York: "Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, 'as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others' (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008)." He also stated, "...communitarianism' should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those 'who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.' (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96)."
As someone who has family in Canada, I've seen just how likely this sort of thing is to happen, the elderly and severely disabled shunted aside in favour of younger, more able, less costly patients. I happened to my own grandmother.
Back in the mid-'80s, I heard a comedian refer to a proposed national health care system: "Finally we'll have a health care system run with the efficiency of the Post Office, and the compassion of the IRS." That is sounding a lot less funny now.
Furthermore, I'm not stupid enough to take the "hybrid public/private insurance" thing at face value. The struggles of many to get companies to offer health insurance to their low-level employees will be completely overturned. Think about this honestly, how many companies will bother carrying any health care if there's a goverment-provided service available. And anyone who has dealt with the cost-reducing shortcuts and restrictions of co-op healthcare, Medicare, or Washington State's Basic Health program is already familiar with the type and level of service that will be provided. Rather than improving health-care for everyone; it will reduce the majority of health-care to the limited, cookie-cutter factory system that so many people now ensure; while good health-care will be increasingly available only to those wealthy enough to afford their own private insurance. Government healthcare won't suddenly, magically receive a huge boost in funding and quality just because it's now universal. If anything, just the opposite; it will become increasingly strained and limited.
Our current health-care system is bad. There's no denying that. But it's bad because of government intervention, not despite it; and more government intervention is not going to make it better. Yes, like Canada, more people will have access to basic health care. But also like Canada, fewer will have access to advanced health care, and more treatments will be classified as advanced.
President Obama cabinet appointee Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, according to a New York Post op ed article by Betsy McCauley, former Lt. Governor of New York: "Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, 'as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others' (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008)." He also stated, "...communitarianism' should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those 'who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.' (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96)."
As someone who has family in Canada, I've seen just how likely this sort of thing is to happen, the elderly and severely disabled shunted aside in favour of younger, more able, less costly patients. I happened to my own grandmother.
Back in the mid-'80s, I heard a comedian refer to a proposed national health care system: "Finally we'll have a health care system run with the efficiency of the Post Office, and the compassion of the IRS." That is sounding a lot less funny now.
Furthermore, I'm not stupid enough to take the "hybrid public/private insurance" thing at face value. The struggles of many to get companies to offer health insurance to their low-level employees will be completely overturned. Think about this honestly, how many companies will bother carrying any health care if there's a goverment-provided service available. And anyone who has dealt with the cost-reducing shortcuts and restrictions of co-op healthcare, Medicare, or Washington State's Basic Health program is already familiar with the type and level of service that will be provided. Rather than improving health-care for everyone; it will reduce the majority of health-care to the limited, cookie-cutter factory system that so many people now ensure; while good health-care will be increasingly available only to those wealthy enough to afford their own private insurance. Government healthcare won't suddenly, magically receive a huge boost in funding and quality just because it's now universal. If anything, just the opposite; it will become increasingly strained and limited.
Our current health-care system is bad. There's no denying that. But it's bad because of government intervention, not despite it; and more government intervention is not going to make it better. Yes, like Canada, more people will have access to basic health care. But also like Canada, fewer will have access to advanced health care, and more treatments will be classified as advanced.
