I just read an excellent article in the opinions section of the Wall Street Journal, “Betsy McCaughey: GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors.” In it, she points out that funding for health care is essentially being cut, just when the rolls of eligible people will grow by 30% as the baby boomers reach the age of 65. Also, it is clear by actions of the Congress that they intend to limit coverage for older people.
“The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.”
“When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.”
Other problems with the bill revolve around the fact that the new legislation stresses preventative care. The problem is that many of the killer diseases are more genetically driven, rather than being behaviorally driven. Thus, prevention, while certainly a smart thing, will not solve the medical problems of seniors and soon-to-be seniors. The bill also strives to shift care from specialists to generalists, ignoring the fact that generalists often misdiagnose or mistreat ailments that are properly diagnosed and treated by specialists.
The article goes on to include the fact that the new bill
“ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, some cancer patients are being denied care by the state that could extend their lives and instead are afforded the benefit of physician-assisted suicide instead.”
To really understand the whole situation that will result from ObamaCare, you really only need to realize one simple fact, and ask yourself one question. Canada and many other nations now have socialized medicine. The only question you have to ask is: Where do people from these countries go when they need health care, after their systems fails them? Of course, you know the answer. They go to the United States. Now, ask yourself this question: Where will Americans go for health care after ObamaCare is introduced?
Go and read the whole article at: