President Obama and the Democrats announced yesterday that absolutely, certifiably and whether we need or like it or not, health care reform will be passed by July 31.
I've begun dubbing it "health care deform," as in deformation, since the consequences are going to be so awful. Read what Labor Law Guy wrote about the consequences of nationalized health care in Great Britain--if your treatment costs too much, you're on your own; the government won't pay for it. Oh, happy day, and this is exactly where we're headed.
Obama said the job must be done because "the stars are aligned." Yeah, and they were for Julius Caesar on the Ides of March.
Showing posts with label health care rationing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care rationing. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Peering Through the DoubleSpeak to Clarity
Here's a piece on Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and his "principles" on health care reform:
Translation: We're gonna ration it, baby. You'll have access to health care (for an unspecified yearly and per-visit price), but you'll get nothing in return if it's too expensive. However, those of us in government--and our cronies--will have taxpayer-funded, gold plate, everything-is-available-and-free health care. These are my principles, sucka.
Rockefeller's principles. On April 21, 2009, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, outlined his principles for a 21st century health care delivery system as the Finance Committee unveiled a series of roundtables leading up to health care reform legislation. Sen. Rockefeller’s principles for reforming the health care delivery system are: (1) create a National Director for Health Care Quality; (2) strengthen the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and provide expedited implementation of its recommendations; (3) provide the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality with greater authority to coordinate public and private quality improvement; and (4) require health information technology as a “condition of participation” in Medicare by 2015.
Translation: We're gonna ration it, baby. You'll have access to health care (for an unspecified yearly and per-visit price), but you'll get nothing in return if it's too expensive. However, those of us in government--and our cronies--will have taxpayer-funded, gold plate, everything-is-available-and-free health care. These are my principles, sucka.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Health Care Reform: Denying Services to Cut Costs
I've been warning here all along about the Trojan Horse known as health care reform. In truth, there is no reform, just an expansion of the government option. Already, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) has been reauthorized, replenished and renamed without the state part, so it's now just CHIP.
Dropping that "S" was actually highly significant because, under Obamacare, the feds are taking over, dude. Now, mind you, in some states a family can make up to $106,000 a year and yet qualify for subsidized health care for their children under CHIP.
Senator Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., points out that children growing up with "free" health insurance aren't going to want to have to fend for themselves when they grow up. So the logical thing to do, from a liberal's perspective, is just give everyone "free" health care.
'Cept it ain't free. It's rationed, and that's the word that should be substituted for "reform." What we're going through right now is more appropriately called "health care rationing."
Senator DeMint correctly points out in an opinion piece that $1 billion in the stimulus bill is going for comparative effectiveness research in the field of health care, a code phrase for figuring out how best to ration or eliminate expensive treatments and medicines.
The junior senator tells the chilling tale of a young woman who died at 23 because the rationers in Great Britain wouldn't authorize her to take an expensive test. Read about Claire Everett and her fate at the hands of Britain's cost cutters.
Dropping that "S" was actually highly significant because, under Obamacare, the feds are taking over, dude. Now, mind you, in some states a family can make up to $106,000 a year and yet qualify for subsidized health care for their children under CHIP.
Senator Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., points out that children growing up with "free" health insurance aren't going to want to have to fend for themselves when they grow up. So the logical thing to do, from a liberal's perspective, is just give everyone "free" health care.
'Cept it ain't free. It's rationed, and that's the word that should be substituted for "reform." What we're going through right now is more appropriately called "health care rationing."
Senator DeMint correctly points out in an opinion piece that $1 billion in the stimulus bill is going for comparative effectiveness research in the field of health care, a code phrase for figuring out how best to ration or eliminate expensive treatments and medicines.
The junior senator tells the chilling tale of a young woman who died at 23 because the rationers in Great Britain wouldn't authorize her to take an expensive test. Read about Claire Everett and her fate at the hands of Britain's cost cutters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)