Obama's Health Plan

Here is an email that Dave sent out today. I thought it was worth posting here. I am planning to call our congressman and woman to let them know I am seriously opposed to this health plan and urge you to do the same. You can find contact information for your congressmen/women here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt. Generally you will just leave a voicemail for the, so it only takes a minute to do.

"I am really sorry to bother you with such a long email. I hope you find it worth your time to read.

 

"OK, let me first admit that these are preliminary thoughts about Obama's Health Plan. I don't know every detail on this (and frankly neither does Obama) but so far I don't like what I see. The debate is heating up as competing Senate and House bills are weighed but with Dems hot to get a bill passed soon we all need to be aware how our health care will change. So research it for yourself but here is what has me extremely concerned at the outset;

 

• First - Health Care Rationing - Dems voted down a measure to prevent "health care rationing" in the current legislation that Republicans offered. This means (and the President and others have conceded) that your care can (under proposed plans) be rationed with decisions being made in DC. So suppose you have say a rare disease with a funny name. And suppose surgery is available to fix the damage from said disease. Well, it would be up to the Government to decide if you are a good use of rationed health care. Is this example a little to specific? Let me try another example being used.

 "You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

 

"Apparently most ethicists (i.e., the types of folks that will be hired to make such decisions) agree that your continued life might not be worth that much. Or at least that such costs and benefits are best weighed by your government. But the issue at hand now isn't about whether health care should be rationed. Some argue (perhaps accurately) that health care is now being rationed by it's high cost. But as a solution, do you want our Federal Government to ration that care? Is that more fair? A government that still can not locate my FBI application, pays $1,000 for a hammer, and is completely immune to lawsuits! This is the best solution to high costs that are a barrier for some?!

• Second - You Can Keep Your Current Provider - This is one of those "true lies" of the health care debate from what I can see. According to the current legislation Government run health care would be "managed care". Do you currently have "managed care" aka an HMO? I don't. So what they aren't telling you when you hear "your provider doesn't have to change" is that the provider may not change but the form of coverage will. So if you are like me with a PPO, gone is the ability to select any doctor and see specialists at my discretion. Sure, I'd still have Aetna but not Aetna PPO. I'd be forced to use Aetna HMO. This is necessary to keep costs in line with what the government thinks it can afford. Apparently the current billl provides a brief "grace period" before you are forced to convert.

• Third - Care for Seniors - Do you happen to know anyone who is retiring? Well, then as you may know their primary insurer automatically becomes Uncle Sam (Medicare - other insurers are always secondary). The current bill intends to trim overall Medicare spending 10%. Not a huge change but at the same time those cuts take place, Medicare will see a 30% increase in their participant rolls. Huh? More people but less money for seniors care? I wonder how they will pull that off (you might ask)? Well, apparently we don't have to wonder. As one example, the current plan intends to enforce limits on care for dementia. This is more of the fun "rationing" described above. Apparently the doctor tasked by the White House with health reform (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel) has spoken publicly about severly limiting seniors care, specifically the care for dementia. He feels that those who are of a certain age aren't the best use of limited health care resources.

"So do you like what you hear so far? Well if you don't then the next item may be the coup de grace.

• Fourth - Who is Exempt from Participating in Federal Health Care - Think about this one for a minute. Who might be allowed to skate on participation in FEDERAL health care? Who would our legislators favor in such a way that they are not required to participate is such a bad plan? That's right, themselves! Our elected officials have written into the current bill that THEY do not have to participate in a Federal Health Care program. It won't be their care that is rationed. It won't be thier kid with a rare disease whose life hangs in the hands of someone in DC. Gee, if their plan is so great, why not participate?

"Last, if you are wondering how you and I will be forced into a government run plan, I am not completely sure on the details (like I said, I am still looking at this). But from what I understand, the idea is that as employers are offered the option of a federal plan that is (on the surface) much cheaper, they will likely shift in droves. Afterall, can you really imagine a company like GM declining the opportunity to offload much of it's health care burden? further, in Canada private insurance that competes with goverment offered insurance is simply not allowed. Do they intend to do the same here? I don't know.

 

"Look, can I see that some in our society go without important health care? Sure. Is this the best solution? Not in my opinion.

 

"Maybe you know someone who is old and may suffer from dementia. Maybe you know someone who is young and has a rare disease. Maybe you know someone about to retire. This isn't a hypotherical exercise in an Ivy League course on the benefits of socialism. This is for real and it will impact us all. So what do you think?

 

"Dave"

(7/21)