The Grandpappy Of ObamaCare Circles The Drain: UK’s NHS In Trouble

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

nhs and obamacare circling the drain

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

You mean the only problem with socialism is that you REALLY DO run out of other people’s money to spend??

African AIDS Tourists Overwhelming England’s NHS

Writing at The Commentator, Vincent Cooper shines a spotlight on the fiscal tsunami engulfing the United Kingdom.

…the NHS is so short of resources that patients in some areas had to be treated in a hospital car park. But if that is true, was not Nigel Farage right to condemn the health service for putting the treatment of foreigners above the needs of those who have paid for that health service and now find themselves being treated in a car park?

Mr Miliband’s solution to hospital car park treatment in the NHS is to promise £2?5 billion in extra funding. But such a promise shows the Labour Party to be in total denial about the nature of the economic problems facing the NHS.

Consider this fact. Public Health England estimates that of the almost 108,000 people who are HIV positive, almost 60,000 are from Africa. The cost to the NHS of anti-retroviral drug treatment for these African health tourists is well over £1 billion annually and rising, as more and more Africans and others hear about what’s on offer from the tax payer.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

And it’s not only HIV tourists. There is the same costly problem with Hepatitis B, another big crowd-puller from all over the world to the NHS, and a disease which can be even more costly than HIV to treat.

But the costs of health tourism to the tax payer are not confined to medical treatment alone. Many of those HIV tourists would be in receipt of housing and other welfare allowances, quite possibly for the rest of their lives.

…The British Labour Party, once a genuine British workers’ party, has now morphed into a fanatically pro-immigration welfarist party that uses the NHS for its own political ends. It turns all debate on the NHS into a party political competition about who will pour the most money into a voracious NHS bottomless pit.

Unless we eradicate the scourge of Obamacare, that’s the future of health care here in the U.S.

Please consider: “The Marxist-Democrat Left is using illegal immigration to destroy America“.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.

.

.

.

Share

British Child Cannot Get Life Saving Treatment There, Authorities Have Family Arrested When They Try to Get it Overseas

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Government, when given sufficient power, becomes totalitarian.  It ALWAYS does.   For the latest example, the British NHS is again trying to kill patients, and even had the family of a child arrested for the horrific crime of seeking medical treatment overseas.  Townhall has more…

What makes today’s story different, though, is that the bureaucracy not only is denying care to a small child, but also seeking to prevent the family from seeking treatment elsewhere.

Check out these excerpts from a blood-chilling story in USA Today.

The parents of a child suffering from a severe brain tumor signaled Monday they would defy efforts to force them to return to Britain, days after their family fled.

So why did they feel the need to escape a presumably civilized nation?

It seems government-run healthcare isn’t exactly on the cutting edge when it comes to life-saving treatments.

The family had fled to Spain in hopes of selling a property to obtain enough cash for a new treatment in the Czech Republic or the United States they hope will help their child. Police pursued them and issued an arrest warrant on suspicion of neglect after Southampton General Hospital realized their patient — Ashya King, 5 — was gone, without their consent. British authorities have made no apology for the warrant.

I can’t resist interrupting the main focus of the story at this point because the story then includes this line.

The case has riveted Britain, which is proud of a health service that offers universal care.

Maybe Brits are proud of their NHS, which would be a poor reflection on the collective IQ of the nation, but it certainly doesn’t offer universal care.

Unless, of course, you include neglect and torture in your definition of care.

Now back to our main story.

…the saga has…raised volatile questions of how much power authorities should have in interfering in some of the most sensitive of questions — and whether it has the right to insist that treatment dictates be followed. …Television images have shown the Kings being loaded into a Spanish squad car in handcuffs. When asked by the BBC on their views, the couple told the reporter they are just trying to help their child. …The family has criticized Britain’s health care system, saying he has a serious tumor that needs an advanced treatment option called proton beam therapy and that it wasn’t being made available to him. …Unlike other types of cancer treatment, it doesn’t indiscriminately kill surrounding healthy tissue, so there could be fewer long term effects.

Doesn’t this remind one of the old Soviet Bloc, who had to build walls to keep their own people from escaping?  Now, they are too cheap to build walls, but they will have the nations to which they flee arrest them and send them back.   Now, apparently, getting over the border doesn’t allow you to escape the suck, unless you’re there in the US to commit acts of terror, or become future democrat voters, but I digress.

Socialized medicine is going to kill this child, and the authorities in the UK don’t want then escaping to defy them.  He just has to be a good little Brit and die for the government, that’s all.

Share

Tragic Irony Overload: Former NHS Director Dies After Surgery Canceled Four Times!

Share

obamacare-lines2Back when ObamaCare was being debated, and what I mean by debated is that the Democrats had closed door meetings without Republicans, I covered the goings on at the British National health Service (NHS).  It’s single payer, and single provider.  And, that tends to kill a lot of people.  Here are some examples…

Babies: There’s a Death Panel for That!

ObamaCare Damage, a Glimpse of out Future: NHS Commits De facto Euthanasia with 130,000 a Year

Socialized Medicine Kills: Brit Doctor Condemned to Death by NHS

Does Single Payer Kill? Why Yes, Yes it Does

Does Single Payer Kill?

The Results of Socialized Medicine: Do we Really Want What Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are Selling?

Rationing Your Life Away

Check them out, most of the stories discuss death by the tens of thousands, and that’s what the democrats want for us too.  In fact, there was a story out a few days ago that really exemplifies what socialized medicine is all about.  It seems that a former NHS Director got a taste of her own medicine, or lack thereof, so to speak…

A former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation – at her own hospital.

Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex.

But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.

Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust – the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors.

He said: ‘I don’t really know why she died. I did not get a reason from the hospital. We all want to know for closure. She got weaker and weaker as she waited and operations were put off.’ 

It’s sad really, but if you put your life in the hands of government, this is what happens.  To a government bureaucrat, she wasn’t a wife, mother, or grandmother-she was a number.  And to the powers that be, her number apparently was up.

Did I mention that this is what our own government wants for you?  Remember Obama telling the woman that maybe granny needed a “pain pill,” instead of the expensive surgery?  Well, when granny doesn’t get the expensive surgery, she dies-just like the democrats want!

Share

Obamacare is Politicized Medicine?

Share

When I was in college I had a fierce argument with my college professor over whether the United States should move towards any sort of “political economy.”

My professor was arguing that America should move towards a political economy, which according to him was a ‘free market’ economy that would serve the goals of politicians. In his opinion, the purpose and function of an economy is to help society to deal with political and governmental issues- that the market’s purpose was to serve the government and that such an economy could be described as a ‘political economy.’ In this economy, decisions about the buying and selling of products, the manufacture of goods, and the hiring and firing of employees, etc should be made by politicians- usually unelected ‘experts’ with degree’s in social sciences- from a standpoint of what would best serve the political goals of the nation (according to them).

My argument was that if America moved toward this sort of economy citizens would be less free, less prosperous, and less protected in their lives. I argued that the economy that my professor was describing- this sort of ‘political economy’- was more accurately a command economy since decisions were made from a political point of view rather than an economic one. Further, the decisions that were made would be made inefficiently due to the disconnect between the supplier and the customer and would be made corruptly due to the role that political connections would play. A society that implemented such a ‘political economy’ would be less prosperous and free.

In my opinion which I expressed to him the purpose and function of government is to help protect the economy, protect citizen’s role in making free economic decisions, and protect the right of those citizens to acquire and keep property. In this economy, decisions regarding economic matters would be made by people, for people, to benefit people, in the people’s opinion. It would not be a perfect economic model- no economy designed by a flawed man is likely to be- but it would be superior to any sort of fascist system that my college professor wanted to move America towards.

These sorts of debates are not esoteric- they are not of unusual interest that do not matter. These sorts of debates very much matter because President Obama is one of those who believed in my college professor and bought into his arguments about the role of government in society. Obama bought arguments like the  ‘public choice‘ theory that led for him to pass Obamacare.

Under Obamacare decisions regarding healthcare for individuals are going to be made by the unelected (and sometimes elected) bureaucrats for what they believe would benefit the majority (or the voting majority) of people, and economic principles will only be harnessed is they serve the political goals of government officials and their clients. A ‘free’ market won’t be utilized- instead the government will attempt to command the marketplace by using its power. America will move closer to the British system, where this is already the case.

And in the British system of healthcare government medicine is increasingly politicized medicine, as this story reminds us. From Powerlineblog story ANNALS OF GOVERNMENT MEDICINE:

…Here is the latest: a National Health Service rationing panel refused to pay for surgery that was needed by Rebecca Beattie, 25, to repair her face after it was smashed by an abusive ex-husband. Her breathing is impaired, and her need for the surgery seemed indisputable. Yet the rationing panel turned her down four times. At the same time, the panel approved breast augmentation surgery for a would-be stripper named Josie Cunningham….

…The story may seem bizarre, but this is what happens when every medical decision is a political decision. Why did Josie’s augmentation surgery get approved? Who knows? Maybe she has political influence; maybe she knows someone on the rationing panel; maybe she paid a bribe; maybe someone on the rationing panel just likes strippers with big chests.

But the Sun didn’t only report. It campaigned, urging its readers to weigh in on behalf of Ms. Beattie. Today the paper headlined: The Sun forces NHS rethink on Rebecca nose op decision. Following our story Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt looked into the case yesterday and was told a rethink was under way at GP-led Vale of York Clinical Commissioning Group….

…Why stop here? Maybe the British could have a reality TV show where patients would plead their cases and viewers would vote on who should get surgery. This is, obviously, no way to run a health care system. But government medicine is, inherently, politicized medicine, and this is the path on which Barack Obama has set us.

Voting for President Obama and Democrats who support him is voting for this sort of corrupt and inefficient way of delivering healthcare to those who need it.

Reject it, and reject them in the next elections, or else some day when you need live-saving surgery you better hope that you have the right political friends or connections. Or else you will die.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Share

Babies: There’s a Death Panel for That!

Share

Sorry for the flippant title, but it’s so horrifying that I had to make a absurdity of it.  Sadly, the truth is far more disturbing.  It seems that that the NHS, the British National Health System, has set up a protocol, or death panel, to deal with the “less than desirable” babies born in the UK.  GateWay Pundit has more…

The Daily Mail reported:

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

Um, might I mention that Donald Berwick, the Obama appointed honcho at Medicare and Medicaid just gushes over the NHS?

Not everyone see’s it that way.  One person, in particular, is Obama nominee Donald Berwick.  Berwick has been nominated to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Like so many other nominees, Berwick seems to have the typical “progressive” elitism, as well as a health portion of reality denial.  Redstate has a great post on the situation, and I will be using the material that they dug up on Berwick.

“I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”

Babies being starved and dehydrated?  Romance?  That’s what the regressives think.  And if you think that isn’t coming here, you’re in for a big surprise.

Share

ObamaCare Damage, a Glimpse of out Future: NHS Commits De facto Euthanasia with 130,000 a Year

Share

Now that ObamaCare has been deemed “constitutional” by the SCOTUS, we have some more glimpses into out future.  There are many aspects to this future that are rather chilling.  The latest is the revelation that the British NHS commits an informal form of euthanasia to deal with the overcrowding and lack of resources in their single payer system.  Life News has the details…

Shocking news from England today has top NHS officials indicating doctors acting in the UK government-run health program annually kill as many as 130,000 patients prematurely because of overcrowding at hospitals, medical clinics and nursing homes.

Professor Patrick Pullicino indicated doctors are turning to a so-called “death pathway” protocol that is essentially active euthanasia of patients, according to a London Daily Mail news report. Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, made his remarks in a speech before the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country. It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours. There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’. He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.

From what I’m reading, there are people being put to death rather than care for them.  Apparently, the rationing system inherent in any government run heath care system is causing doctors to kill off people that can be otherwise saved.  Before someone says “rationing, there’s no rationing!” allow me to remind everyone that even the great NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman has referred to the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the IPAB, as the “death panel.”

video platform video management video solutions video player
So, we will have a rationing body that is designed to limit, or ration, if you will, care. That leads to the next question, what do we do with the people that we aren’t going to treat? How will they be “disposed of?” If this abomination of legislation holds, we will find out!

Share

Exploring the Intent of ObamaCare: Donald Berwick and Ezekiel Emanuel

Share

Note from Matt: Since Donald Berwick has been re-nominated to his post, and the left is busily trying to discredit anyone who speaks out about ObamaCare, let’s tale a look at where the real “big lie” is being told.  Here is a post from last May.

As regular readers are well aware, I’ve spent a great deal of time covering the death and abuse that are part of the British NHS.  We’ve covered that over 20,000 cancer victims die each year because the NHS won’t cover their medications.  We’ve covered the terrible conditions at some NHS facilities, and we’ve covered the lack of care and waiting periods that are part and parcel to any socialized medical system.  Needless to say, the NHS should be viewed as a cautionary warning against a single payer system.

Here are some of the posts here that discuss the carnage that is the NHS.

Does Single Payer Kill? Why Yes, Yes it Does

Does Single Payer Kill?

The Results of Socialized Medicine: Do we Really Want What Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are Selling?

Rationing Your Life Away

Not everyone see’s it that way.  One person, in particular, is Obama nominee Donald Berwick.  Berwick has been nominated to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Like so many other nominees, Berwick seems to have the typical “progressive” elitism, as well as a health portion of reality denial.  Redstate has a great post on the situation, and I will be using the material that they dug up on Berwick.

“I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”

Not enough people dying here?

“Berwick complained the American health system runs in the ‘darkness of private enterprise,’ unlike Britain’s ‘politically accountable system.’ The NHS is ‘universal, accessible, excellent, and free at the point of care – a health system that is, at its core, like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just’; America’s health system is ‘toxic,’ ‘fragmented,’ because of its dependence on consumer choice. He told his UK audience: ‘I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.’”

Source: American Spectator

Wow, this guy is actually bold enough to openly state that he believes we’re too dumb to manage our own health care.

Also, Berwick is an admitted advocated of a single payer system.

“If we could ever find the political nerve, we strongly suspect that financing and competitive dynamics such as the following, purveyed by governments and payers, would accelerate interest in [our policy ideal] and progress toward it: (1) global budget caps on total health care spending for designated populations, (2) measurement of and fixed accountability for the health status and health needs of designated populations, (3) improved standardized measures of care and per capita costs across sites and through time that are transparent, (4) changes in payment such that the financial gains from reduction of per capita costs are shared among those who pay for care and those who can and should invest in further improvements, and (5) changes in professional education accreditation to ensure that clinicians are capable of changing and improving their processes of care. With some risk, we note that the simplest way to establish many of these environmental conditions is a single-payer system, hiring integrators with prospective, global budgets to take care of the health needs of a defined population, without permission to exclude any member of the population.”

Source: Health Affairs

Rationing?  Yes we can!

“NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and — importantly — knowledge-building system [which has] developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.”

Source: In an interview on Comparative Effectiveness Research

Now, we’ve covered NICE before.  NICE is the rationing body in the UK that determines that life saving treatments are not “cost effective.”  As a result, tens of thousands of British citizens die each year from treatable conditions, such as cancer.

The Redstate article also shows that Berwick publicly embraces rationing.

The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

OK, here’s the twist; we’ve heard some very similar things before.  Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, is a government adviser on health care.  Here are some quotes from Emanuel.

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Source:  First Things

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

So, they will use rationing per population, just like Berwick suggests.  Here’s some more.

“There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.”

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.” Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

Source: What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? New England Journal of Medicine, July 1998

So, as Glen Beck would suggest, we need to judge Obama by with whom he associates.  He has Emanuel as an adviser, and now, he nominates Berwick.  Both men seem to mirror very similar ideas when it comes to rationing care, and doing so by “population.”  I think it is safe to assume that both men reflect Obama’s beliefs regarding health care.  If they didn’t, why would he appoint or nominate them?

Actually, this is something that Obama does quite often.  He says he’s against censorship, yet he appointed Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd, both of whom DO advocate censorship.  His latest nominee to the SCOTUS also seems to think that the state can squelch free speech.  He claims not to be a gun grabber, but his AG is.  He still tries to portray his position as more moderate, and the MSM helps, but his appointees and nominees clearly reflect his true intent.  Basically, his rhetoric goes one way, but his appointees tell the true story.

Note: Don has a great post on this subject over at his place, Present Discontent.

Share

The Tale of Two Obama Minions: Donald Berwick and Ezekiel Emanuel

Share

As regular readers are well aware, I’ve spent a great deal of time covering the death and abuse that are part of the British NHS.  We’ve covered that over 20,000 cancer victims die each year because the NHS won’t cover their medications.  We’ve covered the terrible conditions at some NHS facilities, and we’ve covered the lack of care and waiting periods that are part and parcel to any socialized medical system.  Needless to say, the NHS should be viewed as a cautionary warning against a single payer system.

Here are some of the posts here that discuss the carnage that is the NHS.

Does Single Payer Kill? Why Yes, Yes it Does

Does Single Payer Kill?

The Results of Socialized Medicine: Do we Really Want What Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are Selling?

Rationing Your Life Away

Not everyone see’s it that way.  One person, in particular, is Obama nominee Donald Berwick.  Berwick has been nominated to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Like so many other nominees, Berwick seems to have the typical “progressive” elitism, as well as a health portion of reality denial.  Redstate has a great post on the situation, and I will be using the material that they dug up on Berwick.

“I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”

Not enough people dying here?

“Berwick complained the American health system runs in the ‘darkness of private enterprise,’ unlike Britain’s ‘politically accountable system.’ The NHS is ‘universal, accessible, excellent, and free at the point of care – a health system that is, at its core, like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just’; America’s health system is ‘toxic,’ ‘fragmented,’ because of its dependence on consumer choice. He told his UK audience: ‘I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.’”

Source: American Spectator

Wow, this guy is actually bold enough to openly state that he believes we’re too dumb to manage our own health care.

Also, Berwick is an admitted advocated of a single payer system.

“If we could ever find the political nerve, we strongly suspect that financing and competitive dynamics such as the following, purveyed by governments and payers, would accelerate interest in [our policy ideal] and progress toward it: (1) global budget caps on total health care spending for designated populations, (2) measurement of and fixed accountability for the health status and health needs of designated populations, (3) improved standardized measures of care and per capita costs across sites and through time that are transparent, (4) changes in payment such that the financial gains from reduction of per capita costs are shared among those who pay for care and those who can and should invest in further improvements, and (5) changes in professional education accreditation to ensure that clinicians are capable of changing and improving their processes of care. With some risk, we note that the simplest way to establish many of these environmental conditions is a single-payer system, hiring integrators with prospective, global budgets to take care of the health needs of a defined population, without permission to exclude any member of the population.”

Source: Health Affairs

Rationing?  Yes we can!

“NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and — importantly — knowledge-building system [which has] developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.”

Source: In an interview on Comparative Effectiveness Research

Now, we’ve covered NICE before.  NICE is the rationing body in the UK that determines that life saving treatments are not “cost effective.”  As a result, tens of thousands of British citizens die each year from treatable conditions, such as cancer.

The Redstate article also shows that Berwick publicly embraces rationing.

The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

OK, here’s the twist; we’ve heard some very similar things before.  Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, is a government adviser on health care.  Here are some quotes from Emanuel.

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Source:  First Things

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

So, they will use rationing per population, just like Berwick suggests.  Here’s some more.

“There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.”

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.” Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

Source: What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? New England Journal of Medicine, July 1998

So, as Glen Beck would suggest, we need to judge Obama by with whom he associates.  He has Emanuel as an adviser, and now, he nominates Berwick.  Both men seem to mirror very similar ideas when it comes to rationing care, and doing so by “population.”  I think it is safe to assume that both men reflect Obama’s beliefs regarding health care.  If they didn’t, why would he appoint or nominate them?

Actually, this is something that Obama does quite often.  He says he’s against censorship, yet he appointed Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd, both of whom DO advocate censorship.  His latest nominee to the SCOTUS also seems to think that the state can squelch free speech.  He claims not to be a gun grabber, but his AG is.  He still tries to portray his position as more moderate, and the MSM helps, but his appointees and nominees clearly reflect his true intent.  Basically, his rhetoric goes one way, but his appointees tell the true story.

Note: Don has a great post on this subject over at his place, Present Discontent.

Share

Socialized Medicine Kills: Brit Doctor Condemned to Death by NHS

Share

I’ve been trying to present evidence of the deadly nature of socialized medicine for some time now.  Frankly, it hasn’t been very difficult.  Here’s the latest, from the Daily Mail.   It’s about a single individual, but it does, ironically, show how the NHS treats it’s own employees.

A doctor denied vital cancer treatment said yesterday that she had been betrayed by the NHS.

Becky Smith, 30, has been refused a breakthrough treatment which could prolong her life by up to 20 years.

The drug refusal came after her breast cancer was missed four times.

Without the treatment she may only have 18 months to live, the NHS surgeon has been told.

She said: ‘I feel so let down. I’ve given my all to the NHS and I could give it another 20 years, doing the work I love. I just need this treatment to give me a fighting chance.’

Dr Smith’s NHS trust has refused to pay for the £23,000 treatment, although it is available from 40 others, including one only five miles from her family’s home.

She now faces the agonising decision of whether to cancel her wedding to her childhood sweetheart and allow her retired parents to remortgage their home to buy her the chance of extra years of life.

She said: ‘It makes me so angry when I think of the amount of work I’ve put into the NHS and how little I’ve got back.

Doesn’t this story sound very similar to the claimed fiscal stresses and decisions that are the flaws of our (former) medical system?   I mean, how many times did we hear about people making drastic sacrifices and declaring bankruptcy to pay for medical bills?

Just remember, the government has admitted that a rationing board will be a part of ObamaCare, just as we predicted, and just as the Democrats denied.

‘It makes me so angry when I think of the amount of work I’ve put into the NHS and how little I’ve got back.

This is the tragic irony of the situation.  People do sacrifice and “contribute” to the government at a myriad of levels.  But once those “contributions” go through the mill of bureaucracy and regulations, does anyone actually get back what they put in?  I think we all know the answer to that.

I think the lesson here is that we have to recognize that once we are controlled by a giant, unelected bureaucracy, we will be reduced to a number.  We cease to be an individual.  The game then becomes about what is best for the whole.  When that point is reached, as history shows, many die to maintain the collective, and even more so, to maintain the power of the bureaucracy.

Share

ObamaCare Damage: IPAB, Rationing and the Dealth Panel?

Share

I caught this video over at Hot Air today, and thought it best to share it here.  Kindly give a close listen to Peter Orszag, the current Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the POTUS.

So, we have the IPAB, which stands for Independent Payment Advisory Board.  From what Orszag is saying; that it will cut costs by not being “based on quantity,” I think we can safely assume that this is a rationing body.

Now, if this is a rationing body, and they are going to cut costs by not treating things, might this also be the “death panel?”  Both Sunstein and Emanuel (EZKILL, not Rahm), have both tagged end of life care as something to be limited.  IPAB would seem to be a great way to accomplish just that.  No, you won’t have to stand before them and justify your life, but they might just arbitrarily decide to not pay for something that keeps you alive.  Considering that this already happens in the UK with cancer drugs, and 20,000 Brits with cancer are killed by the NHS each year, are we seeing a pattern here?

You be the judge.  Also, note that Orszag states that the Congress was notified of this.  So, not only have they been denying that rationing is part of ObamaCare, they were clearly aware that this is a lie.  In the end, there will be unelected bureaucrats deciding what type of treatments that we can, or can not have.  Add to that, the quotes from the aforementioned government officials who have been suggesting that we cut end of life care, and this law is everything that we’ve been saying it was all along.

Better get Granny ready for the pain pill.

Share

Does Single Payer Kill? Why Yes, Yes it Does

Share

Still wondering why we are resisting socialized medicine?

We are resisting it because it does have a tendency to kill people.  Over the last few weeks, we have chronicled the NHS in the UK, and its record on killing British citizens.  Here is the latest installment, courtesy of the Daily Mail.

Up to 20,000 people have died needlessly early after being denied cancer drugs on the NHS, it was revealed yesterday.

The rationing body NICE has failed to keep a promise to make more life-extending drugs available.

Treatments used widely in the U.S. and Europe have been rejected on grounds of cost-effectiveness, yet patients and their loved ones have seen the NHS waste astronomical sums.

Last week it emerged that £21billion – a fifth of the entire annual budget – was spent on failed schemes to tackle inequality.

NICE, the National Institute of health and Clinical Excellence, promised a year ago to make it easier for drugs for rarer cancers to be approved.

But since then four drugs which could have benefited 16,000 people have been turned down outright and a further six which could have helped 4,000 more have been provisionally rejected.

So 20,000 Brits have died, and our own “progressives” would love to have a similar system here.

Now, the left and Congressman Grayson would say the 40,000 Americans die each year from the lack of insurance coverage.  Now let’s do some math…

UK population = Approximately 60 million.

US  population = Approximately 300 million

Percentage of Americans (allegedly) dying because of lack of coverage =  %.013

Percentage of Brits killed by the NHS =  %.033

Now consider this, the 20,000 are JUST cancer victims that the NICE believes are not “cost effective” to treat.  Again, this is only for one set of diseases!  As we have chronicled here in the past, the NHS kills many more people than just cancer victims.

Representative Grayson made some headlines last summer by suggesting that the Republicans want people to “die quickly.”  Now I see the reverse.  The Democrats want to kill you themselves!  Hyperbole is fun, isn’t it?

How ya likin’ that “change?”

I can no longer cover this topic without a ton of sarcasm.  It keeps my brain from exploding.  If you’d like a great serious post about the current state of ObamaCare, check out LD’s post at Political Realities.

Share

Does Single Payer Kill?

Share

My recent heath care posts have brought on some reactions.  I’ve gotten quite a few spam comments (still in the queue) regarding them.  Most are attempts at lib talking points, but they are nothing if not persistent.  One was kind enough to leave a link in the shoutbox regarding people dying due to lack of insurance.  However, the link comes up as not existing.

Since this claim comes from Rep. Grayson, it might likely be dismissed as pure propaganda, as that is all the left has to offer.

Then, I received this spam comment on my last post about single payer.

This is a disgusting report but you make it out to be like the whole of the NHS is like this? And why?????? You really think that this is how UHC really is and the UK is?? You lot are so amazing that I’m shocked you’re let out for your day release… The problem with UHC is not the concept it’s people like the lot of you who would rather pay millions of dollars in health care just to feel self important. You want everything now, and could not wait that is how Americans are. God forbid if you were told that you had to wait for something like a MRI you would be out suing the government or your insurance company. I feel sorry for you, I really do. Why you don’t want to help your fellow man is beyond me.

A “Wilma Flintstone” sent this comment.  How very creative.

So, since there are some truths to tell, and some trolls to destroy, I thought we might take a look at what happens with single payer plans.

More than 40,000 deaths a year could be avoided if the NHS improved its safety record, campaigners say.

They claim the Health Service is ruled by a ‘ widespread culture of fear’ which puts patients at risk.

Managers are more concerned with hitting targets than improving systems known to be flawed, said the centreright think-tank Policy Exchange.

The NHS kills 40,000 a year???

Using new data from U.S. and European research, Policy Exchange says 78,400 NHS patients a year die as a result of ‘adverse events’  –  brought on by accidents or caused by medication or treatment.

More than half of these deaths  –  43,000  –  could be prevented if hospitals were inspected more rigorously and recommended safety changes were installed.

The figure for deaths is based on ten studies suggesting that 6.6 per cent of hospital admissions each year, around 700,000 patients, suffer adverse events  –  with 11 per cent of them ending in death.

This is bad, right?  I mean, they have been aware of the problem, and have taken actions to correct it.  Well, let’s take a look at what was being said back in 2005.

As many as 34,000 patients a year may be dying from NHS blunders, a bombshell report reveals today.

And he National Audit Office study suggests the toll could even be as high as 80,000.

Figures do not include the estimated 5,000 deaths from hospital infections such as MRSA. Health chiefs admitted nearly a million patients were accidentally harmed.

Half of these could have been prevented if health bosses had learnt from past mistakes, said the NAO.

Well, I see that they’ve really “improved.”

But, the single payer plan cares for patients, right?  Well, let’s take a look at how people die in the caring hands of the NHS.

NFR today calls on the government to launch a major Christmas TV ad campaign warning against the grave and widespread dangers of patient malnutrition and starvation on NHS wards, and insists that the money to pay for it be diverted from the annual drink driving TV ad campaign.

NFR research reveals that while the number of people killed in UK road accidents fell by 7% from 3,172 in 2006 to 2,946 in 2007, the number of patients starving on NHS wards more than doubled.

Not only did the number of NHS malnutrition incidents rise from 15, 473 in 2005 to 29,138 in 2007 but overall, according to the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA), almost 70,000 ‘patient incidents’ relating to malnutrition and starvation were reported.

Malnutrition?  Starvation?  That’s certainly a reason to get the public option, isn’t it?

Well, at least folks can see the dentist

The parlous state of NHS dentistry under Labour was exposed last night after it was revealed 1,000 people in a village ended up on a waiting list for a dentist.

Nearly one in ten of the 11,500-strong population of Tadley were forced to wait after a single NHS practice opened in the Hampshire village.

Their alternatives were paying privately, travelling miles to another NHS dentist – or going without treatment.

Still want single payer?

But they take care of disabled children, right?

Freedom of information figures obtained by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign found children were subject to a postcode lottery in terms of equipment.

Statistics from 54% of NHS trusts in England and Scotland revealed that disabled children in England are forced to wait five months on average for a wheelchair.

The worst performing primary care trust (PCT), East Lancashire, in the north-west of England, had an average wait of two years for an electric wheelchair.

The survey showed 58% of children in England had to wait at least three months for an electric wheelchair and 14% waited more than six months.

Hmm.  Not so good on that either.

At least they don’t ration drugs.

Hundreds of patients with a rare lung disease will be sentenced to death by plans to stop doctors prescribing a range of drugs on the NHS, it was claimed last night.

Campaigners have condemned proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to withdraw the drugs because they are too expensive.

The condition, pulmonary hypertension, affects an estimated 4,000 people in the UK.

Only a quarter of these need the most expensive level of treatment.

Oh wait, yes they do.  I guess sacrificing 1000 people for the good of the rest is OK.  I’m sure that Ezekiel Emanuel would agree.

And single payer plans most certainly never let granny die.

A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.

Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.

The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.

“I can’t believe that at 61 I’m too old for this operation,” she said.

“A friend has had exactly the same thing done and it has changed his life.

“I feel as though I’ve been put out to grass and surely deserve better than this.”

Wow, I guess they do that too.  By the way, that sounds a lot like a “death panel,” doesn’t it?

So, my liberal trolls, shall I continue?  There are probably ten more stories that I can quote.  Tens of thousands of people every year are killed by socialized medicine in just one country.  And this is the level of care that you’d like to see here?

The lesson here is this; Big government solutions to any problems end up turning into giant steaming piles of fail.  It is universal.  The left says that lack of coverage kills over 40,000 a year.  Is it safe to assume that they would feel more comfortable if the government killed even more?

This really goes back to the fact that socialist “solutions” do not take the needs of the individual into account.  Socialism deals with groups.  So, if  thousands of individuals have to die, or suffer needlessly for the good of the group, so be it.  In any socialist system, you are a number-a statistic, and your life has no meaning, as long as the group, and more importantly, that the elites are able to maintain their power.

“Ms. Flintstone,” is this want you mean about helping our fellow man?  Excuse me, but I’d rather not kill more people.  And by the way, when my Dr. told me I needed an MRI, I got one in two days.  And no, I don’t pay millions for insurance.  How many people in the UK die because diseases were not diagnosed in time?

I don’t feel sorry for you.  You’ll happily go along in life, smug in the knowledge that all is “fair” in the world.  You just have to ignore the waste and death that is the proven result.  If you’re willing to trade lives for a failed ideology, that’s fine, just leave me out of it.

On a more serious note, most everyone agrees that there is a need for reform.  There are plans out there that do not involve the government controlling everything.  But then again, control is the goal for the left.

Share

The Results of Socilaized Medicine: Do we Really Want What Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are Selling?

Share

The Daily Mail published this report on the events at one UK hospital.

Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.

Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.

But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction.


The inquiry found that:

• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;

• Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;

•  Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;

•  Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.

So, if or when ObamaCare passes, is this what we are to expect here?  Just remember that ObamaCare is the Cloward-Piven Plan that will lead us to the exploitable crisis that the government needs to justify taking over the health care system.  Just as a reminder of this intention…

Since the public option was soundly rejected by the people, they have to add an additional step to get the public option.  The current plan is just that.  If they can cripple the insurance industry with this bill, they can justify the public option.  The public option will then work towards it’s stated purpose, and the government can begin the gradual (or not) takeover of all health care.

Coming soon to a hospital near you?

Share