Posted on 12/17/2009 7:10:50 AM PST by capecodder
...For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.
Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans "shall provide coverage for" services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The people deserve to know the truth.
The “Healthcare” bills are treason.
Senate Health Care Bill Would Allow Insurers to Limit Coverage for Seriously Ill Patients
Friday, December 11, 2009
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press
Washington (AP) - A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.
The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.
As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.
The provision is included in far-reaching legislation that would carry out President Barack Obama's plan to revamp the health care system, expanding coverage to millions now uninsured and trying to slow budget-busting cost increases. A tentative deal among Senate Democrats to back away from creating a new government program to compete with private insurers appears to have overcome a major obstacle to the bill's passage.
Officials of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said they were taken by surprise when the earlier ban on annual coverage limits was undercut, adding that they have not been able to get a satisfactory explanation. Read more here. read more here
When you hear Obama say existing medicare will bankrupt the government.
How can you draw any other conclusion but that services will be cut to save money?? Especially when you are going to buy insurance for millions of additional people.
“The “Healthcare” bills are treason.”
It’s out in the open treason too as these guys exempt themselves and foist it all on us.
Hey guys, what was bammys plan to deal the current deficit in Medicare unfunded liabilities currently at $87Trillion? It was always to kill off the baby boom before the boomers broke the system. Don’t you just love Dem social insurance promises? Wait till Social Security defaults.
Rationing health care is inevitable under a government plan--how else can you save money? So who are the ones hardest hit by rationing? The elderly, and those in need of serious care with chronic or terminal conditions. So when you get right down to the basics, this plan is designed to hasten the exits of the elderly and cut off funding to the seriously ill in favor of the young and healthy. As one example, Dialysis is expensive, it has to be done often for people with failing or weak kidneys, and how do you cut the cost? Simple, you put a lifetime cap on it.
I imagine would go something like this: "Sorry Mr. Smith, but you just exceeded your lifetime cap on Dialysis treatments. Pay up out of your own pocket or we kick you out on the street to die. Or, there's this guy named Vinnie who runs a cute rate Dialysis out in the back alley for a mere pittance who will gladly let you defer payment if you leave your estate to him in your will. Have a healthy day!"
Disclaimer: the words "death panel" do not appear anywhere in this bill.
“Wait till Social Security defaults.”
There is nothing in the Social Security System to default.
The IOUs given the Treasury for the enormous sums of taxpayer money placed is nothing more than paper.
There is no money behind the paper. Nothing.
It is the ultimate Ponzi scheme foisted upon us taxpayers.
Thank God we have IRAs and 401Ks that have real money in them, not just a “promise”.
Only problem is that the greedy SOBs in DC are trying to find a way to get at this Trillions of dollars nest eggs we have set aside.
Their scheme will eventually show: it will sound something like “Well, this money is still the government’s as taxes were never paid on it. We will take out the money and issue Social Security credits to them”
Evil has many faces, and right now those of the politicians are staring at us.
I believe health care has been rationed through government paid care for years. I’m eligible for VA benefits and used a VA hospital for a non-service connected condition a couple of years ago. I had several diagnostic tests for a non-life threatening condition and tried several different prescription drugs. A couple of things happened during this trial and error process.
1. The only prescription drug that provided some benefit also caused an allergic reaction for about ten days, then that went away and the benefit continued. But, upon refilling after one month’s use, the VA refilled with a generic that immediately caused an allergic reaction that was much worse than the name brand drug. The reaction never stopped, so I discontinued the drug. The VA would not go back to the name brand, even though it was the only thing that helped.
2. There was an antibiotic a doctor thought might help, but it costs $300 for a ten day course. The VA would not provide that prescription drug due to cost.
Nothing ever really helped other than the name brand drug. I finally found a non-prescription supplement that helped more than anything tried at the VA, and that is what I purchase myself and use. And, not criticizing the VA as this is a digestive complaint, and many of those aren’t treated very successfully.
But the point is, in two cases at the VA, health care was rationed and two more expensive drugs denied. And those amounted to a few hundred dollars. Nothing remotely like joint replacements for the elderly and other very expensive treatments.
bttt
gotta pass this one around
This post has got to get a wider viewing.
I don’t really know how to make that happen but someone should add this to some lists
I don’t know if this is true, yet, but I have heard that there will be provisions that prohibit paying out of your own pocket for denied services. If so, this will, of course, force the services themselves to become unattainable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.