“Deadly Doctors” Policed By Obamacare (Pt .2)
Call it social justice
(CLICK HERE if you missed part one of this article)
Our health care system is irretrievably broken. It’s been said that in a country where 45 million or more need but go without health insurance, that is tantamount to human rights violations on a massive scale. Those who will die soon and cannot function without extensive medical care or those at any age who demand intensive care in order to be able to get up and move away from their hospital beds eat up a tremendous amount of money.
It is understandable that they would want to fight for whatever the system would give them, and their families would want the same. However, if a youngster in an animal family is less able to hunt to run to escape predators or hunt for food, does the mother make the whole brood stop in order to save the one? No. That one gets left behind so that the many can survive. Do educated people think this means that nature is cruel and animals need sensitivity training? Is nature wrong? Absolutely not. And from a human perspective, the needs of the few should not prevent 45.7 people in need from obtaining public health care.
The old method
Traditionally, doctors felt they could achieve social justice one patient at a time. However, America’s current circumstances had not been foreseen. It’s time for a paradigm shift. Emanuel spoke out in the Hastings Center Report that 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.” Sounds draconian, and it is draconian. But serious decisions have to be made. In order for a democracy to function properly, we need educated, participating citizens. If people are uneducated and are either not willing or unable to participate, they should not reap the lions’ share of benefits provided by taxpayer dollars.
McCaughey completely misses out on that last all-important point when she says that Emanuel is suggesting that we “don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.” He is, but you are ignoring the larger context. Your portrayal is hence irresponsible to thinking readers, Ms. McCaughey.
Here come the cuts
The current health care bill calls for $100 to $500 billion to be cut from Medicare over the next 10 years (depending upon the source consulted). Since the war hawks will not stand for defense spending to be cut and too many uneducated “citizens” refuse to accept tax increases but want the world on a string anyway, where’s the money going to come from for general universal healthcare and prevention? Medicare is a good place to cut, or at least the way it is structured should be changed so that artificially prolonging life does not rob those in need of care in order to remain productive citizens. That’s what Dr. Emanuel thinks, and so does Dr. David Blumenthal.
Blumenthal argues that it is “debatable” in most cases whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. What do you want, America: get it fast like an order of fries, but the cost is too high and the quality of the care is empty calories? Obamacare aims to combat the cost and quality issues. As HealthCareReform.gov puts it, the president wants to control rising costs, guarantee doctor choice and assure high-quality care “for all Americans.” You won’t be excluded, but there will have to be limits. No more dangerous excursions like the out-of-control spending bus that is Medicare. Hospitals that practice upcoding will have to be held responsible.
- Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
- Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
- Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
- Invest in prevention and wellness
- Improve patient safety and quality of care
- Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
- Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
- End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
Doctors and hospitals
Do they need to do what they’re told? Clearly the idea of the government being able to tell doctors what level of care they can provide patients rankles many. But what if the government team itself is populated by doctors? And considering how often hospitals intentionally over bill Medicare programs, might it not be time to start cracking down on corruption in the places the general public hasn’t been pointing fingers? Perhaps Rick Scott and his hospital group’s $1.7 billion fine for cheating taxpayers (which the company copped to) should be a sign to the people that medical administrators and the doctors who work for them may not be very innocent. The reckless flow of money has to stop or America will go down in flames in a few more generations.
That’s what Obama is fighting against: the death of the American empire
McCaughey considers these to be “dangerous views.” But I say its dangerous for things to remain as they are. The overall health of the nation will continue to decline for as long as massive amounts of money are funneled out of Medicare due to cheating hospital executives and the artificial prolonging of life when clearly no healthy life is possible outside of the safety net of intensive medical care. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, said one Vulcan who was frequently reminded by a bellicose medical officer that he wasn’t human. I say that keeping universal health care with a public option away from the masses who cannot afford insurance but are otherwise productive citizens… is inhuman.
Legislators who would block a taxpayer’s access to payday loans and cash advances are also taking part in an inhuman act: stifling individual liberty and a person’s ability to decide for themselves. Get started here.
Get Started Now!
(a dissenting voice, for comic relief)