I'm posting again, already today, because of a discussion I had with someone about the previous post. This person (this would be my spouse, in case you are wondering) is in agreement with most of what Factcheck.org is saying about the bill, but is extremely unhappy about what he perceives as the bigger picture. The bigger picture, according to him, is not really the bill's overt language. It's what's written between the lines, it's what the INTENT is, it's what the ramifications of this bill could be, it's give an inch, take a mile, it's beginning the downhill slide, as he sees it, into the world of not only the government dictating health care (i.e., socialized medicine), but it's running private health insurance companies out of business because they won't be able to compete. It's the government telling my health insurance company what changes they can make in my plan, and it's federal sticky fingers overseeing a business that it has no business being a part of. Right NOW, he says, there is no one telling grandma she can't have a hip replacement, however, the term "cost effective" has been thrown around and implications made that grandma might be better off just taking a pain piill instead of getting her hip fixed. There's no euthanasia in the present bill, however, he sees it as a way to open the door to that very practice because it could be cost saving. He would like the government out of his life, out of his health care, out of his home, and out of what kind of car he drives.
There's a lot of things in life we can apply the slippery slope theory to and we need to do that from time to time in order to be watchful and responsible in our actions. I appreciate talking with him about it, because as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican, he has a lot to worry about where this bill is concerned and he articulates his worries well. But, he did admit that there are those that present these issues as "facts", when indeed, they are not facts, they are simply opinions of what may happen in the future should our country head in this direction. This is all I'm asking - if both sides could just state what's opinion, and what's fact then I can think and opine for myself.
3 comments:
Interesting post. I just read your brother's and shared a comment. I'm troubled by the many "fear" emails and other info out there that I see and hear. Our government provides a lot of good things for us right now, which I'm indeed grateful for. If its taken away, somehow I'll continue to exist. If not, so be it.
WDK
I don't intend to get into a discussion about this other than to say that through the Medicare Conditions of Participation, the government already "oversees a business that it has no business being a part of". Health care providers that participate in the Medicare program are required, for example, to ask patients if they have a living will and if not, volunteer to help them with one.
You would be amazed at what Medicare requires of those providers who participate in the Medicare and Medicaid systems. Those requirements don't apply just to Medicare patients...they apply to everyone that facility or entity treats.
Government out of your life...don't sign up for Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, and live under a bridge somewhere. Wait...that bridge was paid for by the government.
On a related note, I personally know of more than one instance where grandma did not get hip surgery and instead received comfort care. That decision was made by the doctor and family as they struggled to balance insurance, comfort, quality care, and yes, "cost effectiveness." These happened during my tenure at **** Hospital (where we raised our boys, for those who know us).
The doctor was a committed Christian man, and he and the families truly believed they were doing the right thing. I have no business second-guessing them. Nor do either government people or health insurance people have any business second-guessing them.
Wow! Wise up you critics!
WDK
Post a Comment