Jonathan Cohn writing at ‘The New Republic’ has summarized what’s happening with health reform better than I could. Here’s an excerpt:
“Exhibit number one is the treatment of Eziekel Emanuel, the distinguished oncologist and bioethicist who is working on health reform at the Office of Management and Budget. In the course of his writings, which span academia and popular publications, he has argued forcefully and clearly against physician-assisted suicide. Yet somehow Emanuel finds himself accused of–wait for it–advocating physician assisted suicide…The attack on Emanuel is part of a broader offensive–an effort to persuade anxious Americans that health reformers will harm people who are seriously ill or who have disabilities…Every year, millions of families struggle to get affordable medical care for themselves or their loved ones–and end up in financial ruin, going without medical care, or some combination of the two. Many of these cases involve diseases like cerebral palsy or Parkinson’s–or other conditions that require ongoing, expensive care.
Insurance companies try their best to avoid taking on these people. Apply for an individual policy with one of these pre-existing conditions and an insurer will reject you if it can. If it can’t–if, say, you’re lucky enough to get coverage through an employer–you may well find the insurance doesn’t cover what you need.
Changing that isn’t merely a by-product of reform. It’s the whole point of reform. The plan Obama and his allies support would make coverage available to everybody regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. It would require insurers to cover a broad range of medical services. And it would police insurers to make sure they didn’t try to get around those requirements.”
Bob Laszewski has a similar perspective.
“Sarah Palin want-to-be Betsy McCaughey, who had her last 15 minutes of fame during the Clinton health care debate, claims Dr. Emanuel endorses age discrimination for health care services–basically saying he wants to pull grandma’s plug.
NICE actually makes the British system’s tough decisions so many worry might have to be made here. For example, last year NICE issued guidance rejecting kidney cancer drugs Sutent (sunitinib), Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib) and Torisel (temsirolimus). This leaves patients with only one treatment option – interferon. The reason is these drugs only extended the life of the patient a very few months but they cost about $200,000 to keep a patient alive that long.
Dr. Emanuel is one of the most widely respected health care ethicists in the country. The issues McCaughey is using were quoted out of context and had to do with one of the things Dr. Emanuel gets to think about at the National Institutes of Health–what to do when you don’t have enough organ donors for those who want organs.”
The question that opponents of reform are ignoring is this: “what happens to me and my family if Iose my health insurance? Am I confident that I will get the health care coverage I need at a price I can afford? And when prices double in ten years, will that still be the case?”
Our current health care system is unsustainable. Opponents of reform who do nothing but lie and have no real solutions will have no one to blame but themselves if reform fails and they can’t get insurance or care.
Aug
14
Thanks Joe for your rational and informed postings on this topic. They are therefore entirely uncharacteristic of the rantings that are taking place including describing Obama as both Nazi and Stalin! Never underestimate the stupidity of people who will willingly walk to their slaughter and vote against their clear self-interests in having a health-care system that will be there for them when they need it.
I would rather trust the government to do right for my employees than trusting me, since I might decide to take away coverage altogether, don’t cover families (staff can buy family coverage at a tidy expense) and every year reduce coverage to moderate the obscene premium hikes we receive from our carriers. And of course this is only for my staff, not those who cease to be employed by me or by someone else who provides coverage.
We are on a death march as regards health care if the good guys don’t stay the course. I would love to see some elder statesman congressman or senator basically tell his/her constituents to take a hike with their rantings, rationally address the issues, and dare them to not reelect him if they really have a better idea. The blog postings in the Wall Street Journal and my local paper in response to any articles on the issue quickly degenerate into personal attacks on other writers, the government, constitutional discourses that make no sense to me and trashing Obama in the most offensive and off-topic ways.
It is time for the proponents for reform to take the gloves off and stand up to the organized mob. And hats off to the brilliant strategists who are engineering this backlash behind the scenes, making what should be a rational discussion on an acknowledged problem into a major culture war.
Thanks Joe for your rational and informed postings on this topic. They are therefore entirely uncharacteristic of the rantings that are taking place including describing Obama as both Nazi and Stalin! Never underestimate the stupidity of people who will willingly walk to their slaughter and vote against their clear self-interests in having a health-care system that will be there for them when they need it.
I would rather trust the government to do right for my employees than trusting me, since I might decide to take away coverage altogether, don’t cover families (staff can buy family coverage at a tidy expense) and every year reduce coverage to moderate the obscene premium hikes we receive from our carriers. And of course this is only for my staff, not those who cease to be employed by me or by someone else who provides coverage.
We are on a death march as regards health care if the good guys don’t stay the course. I would love to see some elder statesman congressman or senator basically tell his/her constituents to take a hike with their rantings, rationally address the issues, and dare them to not reelect him if they really have a better idea. The blog postings in the Wall Street Journal and my local paper in response to any articles on the issue quickly degenerate into personal attacks on other writers, the government, constitutional discourses that make no sense to me and trashing Obama in the most offensive and off-topic ways.
It is time for the proponents for reform to take the gloves off and stand up to the organized mob. And hats off to the brilliant strategists who are engineering this backlash behind the scenes, making what should be a rational discussion on an acknowledged problem into a major culture war.
The critics of Ezekiel Emanuel may have a point. Wikipedia describes him as “is an American NIH bioethicist[1] and fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute The Hastings Center[2], is a leading opponent of death with dignity laws, sometimes called state-assisted suicide,[3] and a proponent of a Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan.[citation needed]” There is an entire section labeled “Controvery” wherein his philosophy of rationing of care, and limiting guarantees of care to citizens who meet certain criteria along with his “health allocation system” is expounded with references.
The health insurance industry has been solidly in support of health care reform with specific recommendations since 2006. As for pre-existing condition clauses and medical health history questionnaires in the individula markey (5% of the entire private market), the industry has agreed to do away with them altogether so long as we have a personal responsibility requirement whereby all Americans need to obtain health care coverage. By asserting somehow that the insurance indutstry opposes healh reform does a real disservice to our efforts at reform. Supporting the government-controlled public option is not a litmus test for being in support of true health care reform!
Er, I dunno if relying on Wikipedia is a good idea considering the firestorm of debate surrounding health care and the fact that anybody can edit an article. Even your quote includes the classic ‘this is probably b.s.’ euphemism of Wikipedia: [citation needed].
It appears there have been many edits recently, and it’s unlikely the content is stable.
Try again.