The Senate health care bill has a strange loophole in it…
What was that about no rationing? Death panels being an exaggeration?
It turns out that there’s a funny little loophole in the Senate health care bill. This loophole would allow insurers to place limits on medical expenses to treat costly illnesses — you know, like cancer and stuff.
A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.
The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.
As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not “unreasonable.” The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.
… “The primary purpose of insurance is to protect people against catastrophic loss,” Finan said. “If you put a limit on benefits, by definition it’s going to affect people who are dealing with catastrophic loss.” The cost of cancer treatment can exceed $100,000 a year.
Under the health care bills in Congress, the major expansion of health insurance coverage won’t take place until three to four years after enactment. Democrats have touted a series of consumer protections as immediate benefits Americans will secure through the legislation. Both the Senate and House bills, for example, ban lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage.
But Finan said the change in the Senate bill essentially invalidates the legislation’s ban on lifetime limits.
“If you can have annual limits, saying there’s no lifetime limits becomes meaningless,” he said. A patient battling aggressive disease in its later stages could conceivably exhaust insurance benefits in the course of a year.
I believe we can call this the first step towards rationing.
Someone who is battling an aggressive form of cancer — like, for instance, pancreatic cancer — may not even have a year. So if they run out of insurance benefits in a few months because the treatment they need is a rarer form of cancer treatment (which usually means more costly), then they have that much less of a chance to live. Telling someone they are only allowed a limited amount of money to fight “costly illnesses” is dangerous and frankly, wrong. You cannot put a price on someone’s life.
What’s worse, apparently the people who decide what the benefits cut-off will be are merely “administration officials”. So government bureaucrats will get to decide how much money you get to use in your fight against cancer? Does anyone really want Obama’s administration officials deciding how much money you get if you get diagnosed with brain cancer, or get in a car accident and end up needing costly surgeries to save your life?
We would inevitably be seeing cases like this one, with patients being denied treatment — and heaven forbid doctor-assisted suicide is an option, because if it is, the government will have no problem paying for you to hurry up and die. The Oregon Health Plan does just that, and explained why they won’t pay for treatment, but will pay for you to die:
Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan’s decision. “We can’t cover everything for everyone,” he said. “We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people.” Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. “There’s some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile,” he said, “or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care.”
That’s exactly what we will see happen if Obama’s government run health care passes. You can see the proof in the fact that the Senate is willing to let anonymous bureaucrats decide how much money is allowed to be spent on treatment for unnamed costly illnesses. Some bureaucrat who isn’t a doctor, who doesn’t know you, and doesn’t want to waste money on your pathetic life will decide that you don’t deserve treatment, because to them, it is futile. If you get a brain tumor, and treatment is too expensive, then they won’t care if that treatment is your only chance to live. Your life is worth nothing to them. Why should they care? Treating cancer can cost tens of thousands of dollars a month. Letting you just waste away and die costs nothing.
Thankfully, opposition to this monstrosity is rising. Rasmussen is reporting that 56% of voters now oppose the health care bill, with 46% strongly opposing it. This is compared to the 19% of voters who strongly favor it, and only 38% of voters who favor it at all. Opposition is at its highest ever, while support is at its lowest. More and more Democrats are feeling the pressure and are refusing to vote for it. Harry Reid is getting more and more desperate, but if the public keeps getting information about this bill, they’re just going to like it less and less.
After all, who on Earth wants rationed health care? No one wants to fear that if they get cancer, they won’t be able to get the best quality treatment available because the health care reform that was passed screwed them. But that’s exactly what will happen. It’s why members of Congress have conveniently made it so that they are exempt from participating in the health care reform. It’s simple. They don’t want to have to suffer under rationed health care, but it’s perfectly fine for us, isn’t it?
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!
Email This
Posted by Cassy Fiano on December 14, 2009 11:42 am
» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Communism, Congress, Democrats, Despotism, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Healthcare, House, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Medical Malpractice/ethics, Nancy Pelosi, Nanny State, News, President, Senate, Socialism, Taxes, Totalitarianism, Unconstitutional, liberalism
Trackback URL:
Comments
4 Responses to “The Senate health care bill has a strange loophole in it…”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“You cannot put a price on someone’s life.”
Really … don’t we ask juries to do that everyday ?
Do you have life insurance ? If so then you have put a price of your life.
We may not like it but there is a price for life when you are very sick. As a caring society we have up til now been willing to pay that price in most cases. It is hidden in our insurance premiums and passed thru the hospital system today but it is still there. You may be ruined by a serious illness but if you die it will not be because nobody was willing to pay for your treatment …
Remember, we ALREADY pay for the healthcare of the uninsured today … paying for the uninsured is already built into the system so there is no way adding the “uninsured” to the insurance system will save money.
Given the administrative costs it basically has to be less efficient and thus will raise costs.
“You cannot put a price on someone’s life.”
This is exactly the problem with American health care thinking. While this platitude makes sense in the context that human life is priceless, to be valued above all else, it represents primitive thinking in terms of health care and its economic implications.
Both parties agree that the US health care system is “broken”. I think the Dems decry the lack of insurance coverage for some while the GOP dislikes the “runaway” cost increase. In my opinion, both are mistaken. Is 16% of GDP too much to spend on health care? When we make a statement like that, we are “putting a price on someone’s life.” However, we have no choice but to put a price on everything, including those items that are essential to human survival. Indeed, these items are the ones that have the potential to develop the highest prices. What if, for example, fresh water were suddenly to become scarce to the point that many people could not secure it? Its price would rise rapidly. In fact, in extreme shortages, civilized economics would likely break down and force would probably be employed to secure water suuplies.
This is what we avoid by having a civilized economy: having might make right and allowing those with the most physical or military power to have the most goods. In America we have chosen a market economy because it proves to be the most efficient way to distribute goods to consumers, since it allocates the most goods consumption to those who are most productive, productivity being measured by income. Thus free markets provide a high incentive for productivity, which benefits the common good.
There is no reason why health care is an exception to the effectiveness of free markets any more than food, water, shelter, and clothing are exceptions. So what if health care cost accelerates to, say, 25% of GDP? Isn’t that simply people saying that amount is what they are willing to pay for good health, ie, that is how much of our nation’s productivity people want to be consumed as health care? Let’s face it: free markets have provided reasonably priced food, shelter, and clothing to people. Would we be battling over health care if we had starvation or homelessness or nakedness causing hardship to millions of Americans? Of course not! Thus, why can’t the free market handle health care?
In the end, in a world where resources are limited, everything has a price. The trick is reconciling our inherent self-interest with the self-evident need of others. This is where charity comes in, just as it does under our current system. (Of course, right now that “charity” exists in part because hospitals are under federal threat to provide free care to the indigent or else!)
At any rate, creating additional government bureaucracy will not make health care cheaper or more efficient, so why do it? The federal reform efforts seem to me to be a solution looking for a problem!
“You cannot put a price on someone’s life.”
In the ultimate sense, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the majority in power considers human beings to be the source of all the planet’s problems. If we just kill off enough people, problems such as poverty, and manufactured issues such global warming will disappear. To many, the price of a human life is a few hundred dollars at an abortion clinic.
The main argument we hear for government takeover of healthcare is to provide coverage for the uninsured. If this was actually the agenda, the government could buy the best policies available for he uninsured for a small fraction of the cost of the proposed program and leave the rest of us alone.
Thanks to you and others who point out that the real goal is more government control and killing off those not considered to be contributing to the “new society”.
If the recent debate on health care has taught us anything…it’s that the consumer is not in the driver’s seat on this.
Drug Companies, Insurance companies, Hospitals, and doctors…the ones that set the pricing for medical care…all have their high paid lobbyist prowling the halls of congress, dishing promises of golf outings, campaign contributions, future employment and other goodies to the hungry members of congress.
As long as money is being waved in front of our elected representatives…don’t expect them to pay much attention to voters. After all even elections are won by slick ads that cost money…so follow the money , right?
My wife and I have found a solution that seems to work for us…
Health care beyond America’s borders.
With medical costs a fraction of what the health care industry charges us in the US, we’ve found excellent affordable health care in Thailand, of all places..even without insurance.
To woo the cash strapped and weary American uninsured and underinsured, The Thais (and Indians, Malaysian, and Singaporeans) have built excellent private hospital system that provide top notch care for a fraction of the costs in the US.
These hospitals are accredited and follow the same standards as in the US. In fact they outperform US hospitals in service and care.
Yet you can expect to pay 1/10th to 1/20th what it cost for the same procedure in the US.
Heart Bypass…US $150,000.
Hear Bypass..Thailand $15,000
My minor throat surgery for disphagia…US $2500
Thailand $100.
(That was 1 year ago today and I am back in the US… very much alive.)
In fact in Thailand most people have no use for health insurance. Prices are so affordable that Thais would rather save the insurance premiums and bank it.
While we in the US get hit twice….once by the insurance company…and the second time by the medical profession. So we pay twice for health care.
And don’t think that you are safe with insurance in America. Check your insurance policy for hidden costs like deductibles, copays and insurance caps and you will be shocked to find that health care coverage is VERY LIMITED
The US health care system is a train wreck hurtling down the mountainside with NO hope that anything…even the health care proposals in Congress can fix.
As long as the people who stand to gain the most profit from health care are calling the shots…people who rely on the US health care system are SCREWED.
And here’s the rub. People would like you to believe that the American health care system is a free market system driven by competition.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
A few giants control the insurance industry and a few medical associations strive to keep competition from putting downward pressure on compensation.
Like… when was the last time you saw a hospital post it’s rates like a restaurant posts it’s dinner prices???
When was the last time you saw a physician run a TV advertisement offering lower cost medical care like every hotel, car dealer, grocery chain, clothing store, bicycle shop, and fast food outlet in the United States?
So while everyone in the United States seems so wrapped up in tinkering around the edges of heathcare with tort reform, purchasing insurance across state lines, living healthier, public options, providing insurance for everyone…..the real culprit is staring us in the face: the people who make a living off of health care.