Monday, August 10, 2009

No, there will be no rationing of Healthcare...

So with the flip of a switch, or in this case, the signing of a bill, there will be 50 million additional people added to the healthcare system via the public dole. But, somehow we are to believe there will be no need for rationing of services.

Just so you know who is advising the president on healthcare. Here is but one example:
From "A Hard-Charging Doctor on Obama’s Team"
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: April 17, 2009
NY Times

Dr. Emanuel is a special adviser to the budget director, Peter R. Orszag. He is also the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

By all accounts, Dr. Emanuel is a powerful force in his own right. In an interview in his cubbyhole of an office, he said he got his job on his own, with no help from his brother. [Of course, not. I'm sure it never even came up in the interview.] Rahm was “very conscious of the nepotism thing,” he said. Still, he is widely perceived as having extra clout because of his brother.

For two decades, Dr. Emanuel has been writing about how to guarantee health care for all.


Do you want to read one of those articles? Here you go (pay special attention to Table 1 recommendations):

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
Lancet 2009; 373: 423–31
Department of Bioethics, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (G Persad BS,A Wertheimer PhD,E J Emanuel MD)
Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classifi ed into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off , maximising total benefi ts, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is suffi cient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

It is not much of a leap from their conclusions in this article to how they expect to allocate all medical services once we add 50 million people to the system while at the same time slashing payments to the providers (hence, encouraging many to quit or retire early and fewer to enter the medical field all together)....

I guess Rush is right. Elections do have consequences. In this case, death for the elderly....

3 comments:

Vernon Malcolm said...

AHEFT shows African American health care has long been rationed by breeding us to limit our lives, so why should we pay for all those boomer pensions we will never benefit from? Afater all, it was the boomer pensions which caused the market to crash.

An80sReaganite said...

Vernon, I think you are a kook to believe any "breeding" crap, but I can see your point about the A-HeFt study. However, I believe the legalization of abortion has done far more damage to the black community that anything in modern times. How blacks keep voting for Democrats who want (need, really) to keep blacks in their place (feeding at the government trough) rather than "Reagan" Republicans, who want a smaller government to get out of the way of EVERY citizen regardless of race, is beyond me. And, as a community, blacks keep looking to people like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson, who make their living off of the industry of race for leadership. Why?

Jack Reylan said...

I love it! Euthanize the boomers who deserted Iraq and Vietnam and whose pensions caused the crash. Divine Irony!