Efficient Nationalized Healthcare? Not So Fast

President Barack Obama has undertaken the expansion of health care to the roughly 45 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance. Having about one American in seven with no health insurance is undeniably an undesirable situation which deserves our attention and concern.

This is not just a matter of compassion either, but also of practicality. About the most expensive way imaginable to deal with routine illness is to provide it in hospital emergency rooms, yet this is the only alternative for millions of people. In addition, the uninsured commonly defer getting needed treatment, and with the looming threat of infectious diseases to all our families, we are all at risk when millions go without needed treatment.

Our problem, however, lies in the dwindling supply of health care providers. Most doctors are overworked, many are underpaid. The number of doctors is increasing at a woeful 1 percent a year, and the number of available nurses has been flat for years. With an increasing population -- and one that is aging as baby boomers move into their 60s -- who is going to provide health care to 45 million more Americans, even if we make the wildly optimistic assumption that we could afford to pay for it?

Well, if you are not scared yet, you should be. Let me tell you how the so-called experts would solve this conundrum. It is not pretty. In fact it is so ugly that no one wants to discuss it publicly. Certainly not the Obama administration, or the Democratic-controlled Congress, but also not the private insurance companies -- the ones that once opposed the Clinton health care plan but now apparently see government as the almighty solution.

Apparently the agreed-upon approach is to give health care to 47 million new beneficiaries without massive new costs by being "more efficient" in allocating the currently available health care assets. Well, efficiency is good, right? Not necessarily.

Here is what this "efficiency" would mean in stark terms: severely restricting health care services to our elderly, and the severely and terminally ill. "Efficiency" here means providing services to millions of young and healthy, who do not need much of it, and cutting health care to seniors and the severely ill who "statistically do not have as much to lose by not getting good health care."

In other words, the administration believes that those of above 60 will not live nearly as long, no matter what health care we receive, as a healthy 25-year-old, so why "waste" doctors, nurses, drugs, hospitals and surgeries on us? Health care resources, in cold, hard, inhumane computer calculations, are more "efficiently" used letting the elderly die years earlier after a less-healthy retirement.

My father was a supporter of Medicare. He worked tirelessly to insure that the insolvency which we were facing in Medicare funding when he became president was resolved in favor of continued quality Medicare services for our senior citizens. He cared. He knew that we owe a debt to our seniors that cannot and should not be denied in the name of so-called "efficiency."

We all want a health care plan that is best for all citizens, but we must do better than the current proposals being floated by Democrats in Congress and the White House. Go to Reagan.com and stand with me in opposing any health care plan that increases taxes, buries us in debt, or which reallocates health care away from the elderly and ill.

Even worse, and not at all imagined by the Obamistas, when rationing cuts off the elderly, the rich and elderly will simply purchase the services of strong young men to KIDNAP and IMPRISON doctors to serve their needs.

This can be done a variety of ways ~ some of them not at all violent, or even something the doctors will resist.

All the doctors will need to do business with their patients this way is for at least one patient to be prepared to substantiate the fact of the kidnapping.

Or, as an alternative, the "audit trails" leading to the discovery of non-plan non-participating physicians (under cover serving the elderly) can be smudged with traditional methods.

Certainly America is not without experts in the field of property and casualty insurance scams!

and the number of available nurses has been flat for years.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nonsense....There are nurses out there by the thousands. People like me. ( I am a registered nurse.) I refuse to do the job.

It isn’t the money. It’s the working conditions.

What did it for me was being “pulled” off my regular unit to staff another unit I may have never seen. Not only did I not know the patients, I was often sent to a specialty that I hadn’t seen for years, and I would arrive at the new unit already a half hour late into the shift. Now that’s a prescription for stress. And...I never knew from one day to the next, if I would be pulled.

Then there was the issue of finding a secure place to park the car and safely get into and out of the hospital.

Gee! Do you think on site day care might lure some nurses back to work? It would have for me!

Finally, after being treated like a used Kleenex for several years. I went back to school and earned a doctorate ( at the age of 32) in another health profession. I earned 3 times the salary and never worked another night shift or weekend again.

The AMA just formally announced their opposition to Obamacare. This is very good news! A defeat for Barry on a high-profile issue will chink his Armor of Invincibility and the dominoes will start tumbling. Obama looks like he is going to try and drive this personally, which will cause him to burn a lot of political capital.

The problem with the price of health care in this country boils down to ONE THING: People generally spend other people’s money when they go to the doctor or hospital, whether it be the taxpayer’s, the insurance company’s, or something else. In other words, the people receiving the health care are not close enough to the decision to spend the money. And just like government, if you spend someone else’s money, you do not spend it as wisely or as frivolously.

For example, if you go tot he doctor complaining of chronic heartburn, the doctor might order an upper GI inspection (you know, where you swallow the bulb thingy and the look at your stomach) and then give you a prescription for Nexeum. You don’t really care since you co-pay $20 for the doctor’s visit, nothing for the upper GI, and another $20 for the prescription.

But let’s say that you have a $4000 deductible and you have to pay $200 for the doctor’s visit and $2000 for the upper GI and another $200 for the prescription. Suddenly you are beginning to wonder if it is all worth it. So, instead of just doing what the doctor said, you ask for a less expensive solution and the doctor tells you that you might start buying sweet acidopholus milk, lay off greasy foods, and take an over the counter acid reducer. You discover that this works as well as any other remedy and it doesn’t cost you $2400.

Good analysis. I’ll add that the best things people can do to maintain health are free or will actually cost you less money: Eat a balanced diet, keep weight down, exercise sensibly, avoid stress and get enough sleep. Many chronic health problems (I’m not saying all) are caused by neglecting those tenets.

Many chronic health problems (I’m not saying all) are caused by neglecting those tenets.

I would say that most doctors agree, however, it is often impossible to avoid stress and many people he inherited diseases and health problems. Also, add quit smoking to your list.

I would say that most doctors agree, however, it is often impossible to avoid stress and many people he inherited diseases and health problems. Also, add quit smoking to your list.

I agree. That's why I added the caveat "not all" when I referred to the causes of health problems.

Genes play a big part (esp. as relates to heart disease and cancer) and stress is unavoidable and a natural part of life.

There are positive and negative ways to deal with stress. Drinking, smoking, drug abuse, overeating, e.g. are negative ways of handling stress and actually may end up causing cyclical problems down the road. Eating a healthy diet, exercising, deepening your spiritual life, and pursuing meaningful personal relationships are positive ways of dealing with stress. That's not a guarantee, but just increases the odds.

Many health problems are multi-dimensional and tie into each other. Sometimes it's difficult to determine what is the cart and what is the horse.

One thing you left out; risky behavior and there is little we can do about that.

If you check the male homosexual community, you will find that risky sex causes them to be far more likely to have a whole range of diseases including gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, genital warts, genital herpes, hepatitis A and C, and HIV. Mentally, homosexuals have higher rates of depression, paranoia, schizophrenia, and suicide than the public at large. And on top of all that, homosexuals are far more likely to use illegal drugs.

This type of rationing is an academic dream anyway. In reality, healthy people can’t get care, simple as that.

Wait times get too high for working or desperate people, who then must pay out of pocket to get care.

Even overseas, the only care readily available is “house calls” by a low tech “doctor” with a bag; exactly like care 100 years ago.

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.