Monday, July 13, 2009

Giving Me A Headache

What is it Bob ?
I am not an O'zombie, so what I say about Obama's plans must be wrong
In the clip, you heard it out of his own mouth.
Maybe that clip was not credible because it was from the Fox News Channel
OK then what about a publication that is more Obama friendly ?
Would you agree with something from the New York Times ?
Back in April, Obama was interviewed by David Leonhardt that touched on a few interesting topics, and most of all he asked about health care
Take a look

NYT: You have suggested that health care is now the No. 1 legislative priority. It seems to me this is only a small generalization — to say that the way the medical system works now is, people go to the doctor; the doctor tells them what treatments they need; they get those treatments, regardless of cost or, frankly, regardless of whether they’re effective. I wonder if you could talk to people about how going to the doctor will be different in the future; how they will experience medical care differently on the other side of health care reform.
First of all, I do think consumers have gotten more active in their own treatments in a way that’s very useful. And I think that should continue to be encouraged, to the extent that we can provide consumers with more information about their own well-being — that, I think, can be helpful.
I have always said, though, that we should not overstate the degree to which consumers rather than doctors are going to be driving treatment, because, I just speak from my own experience, I’m a pretty-well-educated layperson when it comes to medical care; I know how to ask good questions of my doctor. But ultimately, he’s the guy with the medical degree. So, if he tells me, You know what, you’ve got such-and-such and you need to take such-and-such, I don’t go around arguing with him or go online to see if I can find a better opinion than his.
And so, in that sense, there’s always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider. And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. And certainly that’s true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, where the taxpayers are footing the bill and we have an obligation to get those costs under control.

He thinks the Government can be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. This statement tells me that the government will have the power to choose which treatment you will be allowed to have.

Now would this apply to everyone, Probably not. I am inclined to think that some people would get " special treatment "
Obama stated " Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care "
Who will make the determination of when end of life care begins ?
If a doctor tells you that a family member has 2 months, or 6 months left to live, will the " appointed panel " decide that it is too late for any further care ?
Obama said this about his own situation

Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.
So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.
And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.
I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.
And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.
So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

There you go.
He does not say that the government would not be involved in what treatment would be available to people, he said that a group would discuss the chronically ill and those at the end of their lives.
A group of doctors, scientists, and ethicist appointed by who ?
If it is a government plan, then the government would be the ones that will assemble the people that determine who gets what care
and this would be the beginning, how long would it take before they debate on what treatments would be available for people over age 40, and people over age 30
Obama wants to cut costs by limiting coverage to the sick and dieing, then who will he deny treatment to so that he can save some dollars ?
Autistic children ?
People who have lost a limb ?
The blind ?


Sandee said...

He wants to be God to the world. Not just here, but everywhere. He'll 86 term limits next so he can be the supreme ruler as long as he lives. Not going to happen. He and his hacks need to stay out of private enterprise. That's what fuels America, not welfare.

Have a terrific day. :)

Bob said...

I don't think denying treatment is his goal sense he is trying to get health care for those who don't have it now. If they didn't have health care to begin with, how is it denying treatment to have a panel decide if the treatment is necessary?

lot 2 learn said...

My point was Bob, that he will decide treatment.
The fact that the government will decide if a treatment is neccesary is choosing who gets what care.

Len said...

You ask a very good question when you ask who is going to appoint the group of doctors, scientists and ethicits who will consult on treatment options. My question is: Who appointed the insurance company accountants who make those decisions now? Surely you don't believe your doctor has any say in the treatment you receive? Every decision about your medical treatment is now made by some insurance company bean counter sitting in a cubicle somewhere that has never had a single day (or hour) of medical training. Whatever this administration is able to get through Congress and past the lobbyists cannot possibly be worse than they system we now have.

lot 2 learn said...

@ Len
So far they have managed to sneak a lot of things past everyone, and Obama just smiles even bigger.
If you think a left wing appointed board that has the power over life or death can't be worse than what we have now, then let me have a sip of what youre drinking

Bob said...

Obama won't decide treatment, a panel will decide if other treatments are necessary if that person's diagnosis is terminal. A left wing appointed board can't be any worse than a right wing appointed board. Len is right, read his comment.

askcherlock said...

I agree with Len on this issue. I have had too much negative experience with insurance companies and believe that they are, in fact, a large source of our health care problems. Their bottom line is the dollar, not the patient.

I also used to be a social worker and know for a fact that many folks get on Welfare, sometimes fraudulently, just so they can have medical coverage. Often this impacts the self-employed and I understand their dilemma. If folks are "using" Welfare, who do you think pays for that cost? You and I pay.

Somehow we need an equitable system. There is no way to please everyone, but we need to do the best we can and work out the kinks as they come to light.

lot 2 learn said...

I started this post telling everyone that this healthcare stuff was giving me a headache.
I said Obama would decide your options because his plan, his panel.
and for the left wing panel, I think they would be bad since I am standing here just right of center

Len said...

lot2learn, anytime you want to drop by and have a sip of whatever I am drinking, please feel free. You're always welcome!

Blogging Tips said...

Hey you got a wonderful blog covering interesting article written in simple understanding
language. I have bookmarked your blog for my future use.
Thank you
Download free CSS templates