In Contradistinction to Heartless Republicans, Obama Cares about Sick People

The American Thinker Blog ^ | February 01, 2011 | Peter Wilson

[Scanian]

The New York Times Business section responded to the Florida court decision on ObamaCare not by addressing the issues but by tugging at the heartstrings:

"With a court decision on Monday declaring the health care law unconstitutional and Republicans intent on repealing at least parts of it, thousands of Americans with major illnesses are facing the renewed prospect of losing their health insurance coverage.

"'We've got to protect people from catastrophic health problems,' said Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA...Protecting people from facing these extremes is one of the main goals of the law, according to its proponents."

I agree with Mr. Pollack. Sort of. Telling people with catastrophic health problems that time's up on their treatment is another form of a death panel, operated by insurance companies rather than government bureaucrats. We are a wealthy country and we really shouldn't throw sick people into the streets to die.

The reality however is a bit more nuanced.

The Times uses two individuals to make its case, and neither makes an unassailable case for ObamaCare. The first is a hemophiliac on an extremely expensive treatment regimen. The Times reports, "In 2010, the bill for the clotting factor medicine he needs was $800,000 [per year], and his policy has a $1.5 million [lifetime] cap." I hate to be hard-hearted, but there are many, many medicines for hemophilia that cost nowhere near $800,000 per annum. Examples in a Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy article range from $8,000 to $90,000 per year.

The second individual, Hillary St. Pierre, suffers from Hodgkin's lymphoma. Her insurance company has spent close to $2 million and she is nearing a cap on her coverage. The Times notes however:

"And while Ms. St. Pierre, who has worked with the cancer society, says she knows she is likely to be able to continue to receive some treatment without insurance, she also knows that it is not likely to be the optimal care. The same is true for any patient who runs out of coverage, Mr. Finan said. 'You may well continue to get care, but the quality of care is markedly lower,' he said."

I might be outraged if lower quality care meant dirty needles and Romanian orphanage standards. In both cases however I would guess that it means that stratospherically expensive experimental treatments might not be available to every single American. It would be nice if we could devote unlimited resources to medical care, cost be damned, but the reality is that some consideration of costs and benefits is necessary.

And even if we decide that only "optimal care" is good enough for every citizen, the "thousands of Americans" affected by catastrophic disease is around 20,000, according to the Times. If one of ObamaCare's "main goals" is to protect these people, we could create a special provision to cover these 20,000 for a fraction of the cost.

[lowbridge]

bump

[SkyPilot]

There was a radio program on a Philadelphia talk station on Friday. It was hosted by two Democrats, at least one of them was a lawyer.

The topic of the program was tort reform. The hosts were spewing lies and taking Democrat callers who were trying to argue that if you limited the amount of suing going on in the health care industry, then the "doctors and nurses would sit around on their a$$es" and not help patients. I know this sounds like I am making it up, but I am not. I believe the station was 1210 on the AM dial (WPHT) - so someone can back me up on this.

In the Democrat fantasy world, it is only the trial lawyers who are our saviors. Doctors, nurses, and health care workers wouldn't lift a finger without the threat of billions and billions in lawsuits (that ambulance chasers like John Edwards used to build his mansions, beach houses, and lairs for his whores).

Unbelievable.

The trial lawyers, in turn, give millions to the Democrats.

I can't believe that so many Americans are so stupid.

[Scanian]

What can you expect when their “messiah” had the gall to accuse doctors of doing unnecessary surgey just to make more money?

[exDemMom]

Aren’t those patients profiled in the article lucky?

Under Obamacare and the death panels, they probably would never have been allowed to receive those treatments in the first place, since the first consideration of the death panels would be the cost-effectiveness of the treatments, not quality of life for the patient.

Instead, their insurance companies allowed them to get the treatments, up until they reached their lifetime cap.

(I suspect that a decimal point was left out of the hemophiliac’s yearly cost, or an extra zero was put in. $800,000 per year to treat a fairly common disorder seems excessive.)

[sauropod]

I do think WPHT has a lib talk show host. Don’t recall when he’s on. Little mikey smerconish (/spit) is on in the afternoon.

I quit listening to them when they got rid of Glenn Beck.

[sr4402]

Actually Obama is hurting the poor. He is raising the price of their water and food. He raised the price of their health care premiums. And Obama was trying to make homes unafordable to them (through heavy handed Environmental legislation).

This is Obama's Achilles heel, that he is hurting the poor so badly. Many of the poor are asking 'What has he done for us?' since he has increased unemployment to horrendous levels and not paid their rent and utilities (as promised on the campaign trails).

Seniors are deeply concerned about Medicare Cuts and that Social Security is Bankrupt.

Obama is loosing too much of his constituency - the poor and seniors. He should be concerned.

[G Larry]

Is there something “caring” about providing an insurance card when there is no actual healthcare behind it?

[Honorary Serb]

...obama Cares about Sick People....

Yeah! He wants to kill theme to save money. Then he wants to give the money he saved to illegal immigrants, obama cronies, and muslims!!!!