Posted on 08/18/2009 3:29:29 AM PDT by Scanian
FOR generations, we doctors have promised our patients that medical advances will allow us all to live longer, more comfortable lives. Now that these results are finally arriving, "health-care reform" -- or "insurance reform," as they're now pitching it -- could snatch the rug out from under us.
Cost-control is central to any health-care "reform" along the lines favored by President Obama and congressional Democrats. But new treatments, while ever more precise and personalized, are also costlier.
Anyone who's been saved from cancer by the latest targeted chemotherapy treatment, had a lung or breast cancer diagnosed early by a CT scan or MRI or returned from the brink of a heart-related death thanks to the newest drug-treated stent, understands that some expensive care is well worth the price.
Over a million American patients a year get cardiac stents to keep their coronary arteries open, at a cost of billions. Is that too much to pay to keep patients alive, or at least save them from intractable pain?
The president has largely stopped promoting "cost control" as one of the virtues of his reforms -- but every nation that has adopted anything like that has also adopted measures that kill medical innovation. They buy less cutting-edge technology; won't pay for new, expensively researched drugs -- saving government money at the cost of future patients' lives.
Which recent advances would have been aborted if we'd adopted "reform" years ago? Anti-inflammatory treatments such as Enbrel for corrosive arthritis? Major surgeries made far less invasive through use of a 'scope? More precise and powerful lasers to treat the skin and eyes?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The problem is not the health system. It is the legal system.
The legal system in America is broken. Costs are rising at an unacceptable rate.
Laywers eagerly help rapists, terrorists, murderers .. and ignore Americans.
Too many people feel trapped by legal decisions and lack of access to honest lawyers.
And 300 million Americans worry what will happen to them or their children if they need a lawyer.
Lawyers run the White House, Senate and Congress, and are proven greedy, stupid,
and ignore any law in their own way.
Lawyers are responsible for the entire mess of America (retreat from the War on Terror,
retreat from space, retreat from Democracy, retreat from the greatest health system ever known,
retreat from safety of America, retreat from logic, retreat from the US Constitution.
Lawyers designed the "health" program (the'pyramid of food') that led to American obesity.
Lawyers have instituted neoslavery for ... all non lawyers.
Lawyers have instituted taking private property ... for all non lawyers.
Lawyers have instituted breaking contracts nunc pro tunc ... for all non lawyers.
Lawyers make sure no one will never see the undocumented Pres_ _ent's BC.
Lawyers have screw up the ROE for terrorists and America's enemies (no surprise there).
Lawyers make certain white voters will henceforth be physically beaten in all further US elections.
Lawyers tirelessly work to make Americans sick, weak, defeated, and vulnerable.
Yes, lawyers are here to give Islam the complete destruction of America, its law, its freedom, and its people.
Health Care Reform by the Obama Government is not about cost cutting,it is not about seeing all or more people get health care.Its is not about controlling cost as created by lawyers as no tort reform is part of the plan. Its not about better health care.
Its about power and control
To many people control their own heath care decisions.
Under Obama care the Government willcontrolALLhealth care decsion for everyone.
It has never been about your health.It is all about controlling you.
As long as the cost of those medical advances don't exceed the rate of inflation!
Docs are in an unacceptable position...They are in the healing arts....yet they have to be four square oppose this anti-life bill. ANY Dr. that supports this is NOT a true Dr., and most certainly is not interested in curing diseases and saving pts lives.
YES anti-life...anytime you make decissions about medical care and finacial components. LIFE will lose...always. It has to...because of the sheer cost of Government run health care. This admin fully intends to continue to give illegals free health care. To do this...they will HAVE to cut services to and Doc pay for services guaranteed to American Citizens. HAS to happen...there is absolutely no way around it.
Are you a DR? The vast majority of Drs just want to practice the healing arts. They have office staff to fight the financial battles.
My question is (and no, I do not want to get “flamed” for asking) is why does the cost for an mri or cat scan not come down after it’s been on the market for a while? I mean when new technologies such as computers, dvd players, etc. come out on the market, they’re expensive, but then the cost drops as newer technology comes around. Is that the case with medical technology? How many mri’s and cat scans does it take to pay for one piece of the equipment? Is it like the toll roads where once the money is paid back, the tolls go down? Maybe I’m just too “countrified” to understand and I honestly don’t know how it all works for sure but it seems like something’s wrong with it.
Just my thoughts...
.
Which recent advances would have been aborted if we'd adopted "reform" years ago? Anti-inflammatory treatments such as Enbrel for corrosive arthritis? Major surgeries made far less invasive through use of a 'scope? More precise and powerful lasers to treat the skin and eyes?. . . Even current treatments are at risk. Would the proposed one-size-fits-all insurance pay for breast reconstruction for my vital 85-year-old professor patient? I don't think so. Would my 75-year-old artist still get his dialysis? Would my 68-year-old hepatitis patient still get his liver transplant?
Socialized medicine = Cheap medicine.Government can censor the cost of quality, but Gresham's Law - bad money drive out good money - applies to goods and services just as it does to money. Government can deny the difference between wool and shoddy - but whatever Obama might choose to say, the difference has real effects on real people.
A hammer is a marvelous tool, but only for the right job. If you took an expensive watch to a repairman and he pulled out a hammer, you would be extremely nervous, if not aghast. Maybe he could find a way to do some good with that implement, but you would be more focused on the damage he could cause.The watch represents hope. The hammer represents change . . . of a sort.. . . The challenge in this country is to extend coverage to the uninsured without degrading quality for everyone. With a little caution and humility, the president and Congress can find ways to achieve that goal. But first, they need to put down the hammer.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2317165/posts?page=11#11
The watch represents limited constitutional government; the hammer represents socialism.
Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .In the Constitution we already had hope, and progress, too. Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was fabulously wealthy for her day, but did not enjoy much of anything running on electricity or gasoline, air travel or modern medicine. The simple medical device which saved my life almost ten years ago was invented about the time Queen Victoria died. Queen Victoria was a depressed widow for the last two decades of her life; modern medicine would surely have extended her husband's life for years.With a record of progress showing that Queen Victoria would have been well-served to have been able to change places with an American secretary, American "conservatives" can scarcely be faulted for suspicion of an insinuation that America lacked hope, and a promise of "change."
BTTT
The watch represents hope- the hammer change... of a sort.
A well presented and rational offering. A plea for reason instead of a battery of vituperation. One can understand the anger, I have to say.
I had seven years under the English National Health system- before the ills of a blanket "panacea" kicked in. I have long been under the Ontario plan- OHIP. Now there is one awful ramification of any blanket system. It is certain of the general public themselves.
Their mentality is that if it is "an entitlement" they are jolly well going to get it. In Newfoundland, it is revealed that 6% of the population covered use 24% of the services. One woman had 72 visits in a year and 13 different doctors.
In Western Canada, a Provincial Government bought in a bill, to at least charge ten dollars for those who dropped in willy-nilly to the emergency room. There were howls and screams from the usual suspects and it was dropped. We know that those of the "poor" even those that work for low wages, easily spend big dollars. Possibly fifty dollars weekly and up. This on alcohol/tobacco, fast food and lottery tickets. I might add, I myself spend about five dollars weekly on lottery tickets and like a bit of the old liquid beverage. I not condemn anyone that wants these creature comforts- just those who put them first.
Once again it is the absolute abuse of the system by those, who jam up the "Murge",(Emergency) to bypass any waiting time for the doctor. A humane idea would be to insist on personal responsibility and common sense. Alas- it will be vain words.
What an excellent, thoughtful analysis.
Thank you. This is why I am a paying member of FR...:)
Don't have the answer to your question, but there are fixed costs associated with the machines, for example the liquid helium for mri's.
I suspect there is a lot of "share the wealth" going on where those that can pay (usually with insurance) cover those that can't. That is how many of those who cannot afford treatment now get covered and it is called charity. This will disappear under Obamacare because it would be called fraud. I also suspect that the use of these relatively expensive diagnostic tools will be quite limited and the quality of our medical care will take a nosedive.
Don't have the answer to your question, but there are fixed costs associated with the machines, for example the liquid helium for mri's . . . when new technologies such as computers, dvd players, etc. come out on the market, they’re expensive, but then the cost drops as newer technology comes around. Is that the case with medical technology?My question is . . . why does the cost for an mri or cat scan not come down after it’s been on the market for a while?
I suspect there is a lot of "share the wealth" going on where those that can pay (usually with insurance) cover those that can't. That is how many of those who cannot afford treatment now get covered and it is called charity. This will disappear under Obamacare because it would be called fraud. I also suspect that the use of these relatively expensive diagnostic tools will be quite limited and the quality of our medical care will take a nosedive.
When MRI's and CAT scans were developed, computation was thousands of times more expensive than it is presently. This computer I'm typing into is easily more capable as the one for which my employer paid millions back in the 1970 time frame. So it only makes sense that the data processing part of the equation went from "barely possible" to trivial in that period of time. There still remains the hardware for data acquisition, with its cryogenic magnets and so forth. And the personnel to get the patient in position for the scan, and then the interpretation of the images is still done by a professional radiologist.My money would be on government mandates which have the effect of skimming off the profits in order to pay for indigents and so forth. In Canada, I understand, it is easier to get an MRI for your pet than for yourself.
Well, that makes sense I suppose.
Now that many Americans have a glimpse into what Obamacare will do to them and their loved ones, there is much protest in the air...and for darned good reason.
As you said, Socialized medicine is CHEAP medicine, which leads to a FAR LESS HEALTHY and VIBRANT population. As Dr. Betsey McCoughey said in a recent interview with Sirius XM Host Andrew Wilkow, the proponents of Obamacare are Luddites in the sense they want to set technology advances back at least half a century or more, which is truly an abomination.
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.