Posted by
Michael DeWeese on Monday, July 06, 2009 6:01:36 PM
In a town hall meeting on July 1st 2009, Dear Leader ZerO met Exhibit 'A' of how the government controls health-care costs. Debbie Smith is suffering from Renal failure and is allegedly unable to work. But the government no longer considers Renal failure a disability (cost cutting) and she can not get Medicaid assistance to pay for her medical needs. This is the result of government efforts to cut medical costs. Today the government denies disability and medical assistance to a woman with Renal failure, tomorrow they delay tests and biopsies for suspected tumors, and the day after tomorrow they deny procedures and drugs for people deemed non productive for society. This is what government health-care cost cutting means. A bureaucrat decides what is and isn't a medical disability, prudent preliminary test, or a necessary procedure.
"Good afternoon, Mr. President. I'll try not to cry. I'm trying to figure out what I can do currently. My situation is I had renal cell carcinoma in '98 that was radiated, because my dad was dying of colon cancer at the time, and I was his health care server on his living will, so I could not be tied up having my kidney removed. So they did radiation procedures to kill the tumor then. And I had insurance and everything was taken out.
But basically because of the damage that the radiation did in things, I'm no longer able to work and I have no health insurance. Now I have a new tumor. I have no way to pay for it. Doctors will not see you without paying $100 or $150 to come into their office. I can get checked into a hospital -- under their program, they will run tests and release me, but that costs a lot of money.
So currently I basically -- Social Security will not give me disability because renal failure is no longer a qualifying factor under Social Security currently. I cannot get Medicaid from the state of Virginia because you have to be considered disabled through Social Security to qualify for Medicaid in the state of Virginia because I have no dependent children at home -- it's just me. I get food stamps, but that's it. And I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to make it in nine years until I'm qualified to get my regular Social Security -- now that I have a new tumor and I have nowhere to turn."
As Dear Leader ZerO has stated in the past. We need to control costs, why should we pay for extra tests when they aren't really needed. Tests and treatments that your doctor may need to eliminate a possible ailment origin as well as to determine the cause. Or a test that can lead to early discovery of a disease not even contemplated. They aren't really needed.
Dear Leader Zero: "treatments that, in some cases, they don't really need"
Of course, government control of costs is all about finding what works.
Dear Leader ZerO: "identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided."
Of course it isn't about 'control' or 'dictating' what is and is not allowed due to costs. It is about what 'works'. According to some bureaucrat.
Dear Leader ZerO does advocate better medical information sharing and computerization of medical records to help modernize the medical profession and cut costs through better efficiency. A program proposed by President Bush during his State of the Union address in February 2005, and signed into law by President Bush with full implementation by 2014. President Bush was following up on an idea begun by his father President George H. W. Bush which hit a lot of snags due to concerns about privacy of the electronic records. Although Dear Leader ZerO yearns to take credit for it. (from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-Annual-Conference-of-the-American-Medical-Association/ )
Dear Leader Zero: "First, we need to upgrade our medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system of record keeping."
But his top priority is control. By government top down central control of the Medical delivery system. The operative phrase here is 'government control'.
Dear Leader Zero: "What I've said is, our top priority has to be to control costs. And that means not just tinkering around the edges. It doesn't mean just lopping off reimbursements for doctors in any given year because we're trying to fix our budget."
It means control by eliminating options that the government does not have control over. Like private enterprise. Like freedom of choice. It means giving Americans an offer they can not refuse like the Public Health Program.
The Public Health Program option is a rigged game. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this Government agency will look on the surface to be an independent entity, but in fact will be a toy of the members of Congress that are on the oversight committee. They will appoint cronies to oversee it and manage it. Giving them bonuses and incentives to cut costs to look good on one hand, and subsidizing their revenue shortfalls from the cost cutting with tax money on the other. No private Insurance program of any kind will be able to compete with a company that can print it's own money to be profitable. In short order, the only option will be the Public Health Program option, and the controlled costs of any medical care you may need.
What we should have is less stifling of the Health Insurance industry in inter state commerce so that people in each state are not limited to only the local insurance companies where there may only be a few or even just one offering. The extra competition will lower costs of insurance and expand the diversity of products offered.
What we need is the addition of a tax exemption for Insurance costs on an individual level equal to the tax exemption businesses enjoy. That would allow individuals to purchase the insurance of their choosing while not eliminating the advantages business have in offering a health insurance benefit to attract employees.
Individuals should be allowed to partner with their employer to allow the business the tax advantage if they pay all or part of the insurance premium. At the same time allowing the individual mobility to carry the insurance to a new job when needed that may not offer any health insurance benefits.
Vouchers for insurance premiums for low income families to purchase a policy could be designed similar to the food stamp program model. Approved Insurance plans would be offered to anyone using the voucher system to prevent fraud and abuse. Some states already use a system of approved Insurance plans with premiums paid for by the Medicaid program instead of being a direct payer.
Everyone will have the freedom to choose their benefits they want, the doctor they like, and have the ability to switch plans if they are not being served adequately.
The best way to control medical costs would be if everyone paid out of pocket for medical care and by necessity had to shop for the best medical care for the purchase amount. Insurance and Government programs do not provide for consumer oversight of medical costs like individual direct payment would, but with medical costs as high as they are for even minor ailments, it would be beyond the means of most family budgets to be direct payers of medical costs. We have to rely on a common pool of funds. The proposition is if we rely on one government controlled fund, or on a choice of many Insurance funds.
Our future will be one Government controlled program when Dear Leader Zero implements his medical cost controls and Public Health Program 'option'. More and more people will be like Debbie Smith. When more ailments are added to the list of inadequate diseases to qualify for treatment, like renal failure no longer qualifies for disability, all to cut costs. We will all be unable to qualify for medical disability. Or we will be waiting for tests. Or we will be in line for approval for a review of a preliminary exam for the necessity of an operation for a life threatening ailment.