Who Is Deciding Your Health Care Issues?
Nov20There is now a second example of how Americans Health Care procedures are being determined. Perhaps not a single death council but by many councils, groups, or previously unknown federal agencies. Recently it was mammograms going from age 40 to age 50. The American Cancer Society, have studies that show mammograms
“substantially reduces breast cancer mortality by 63%, according to a study presented yesterday by Robert A. Smith, PhD, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society.”
. Now studies suggest that women don’t need pap smears as often. Yet, as the AP News reports, it might not be as much as a controversy citing:
“The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence,” said Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico, who headed ACOG’s review
Some are not so shaken up at the fact that studies and mysterious federal bodies will decide your care. The evidence points to others deciding health care for citizens. Its admitted that rationing exists both today and under any form of government controlled health care. No one aruges that, yet its the form of the rationing.
Who is deciding your health care choices?
Author : Gerald Biolchini
Author's Website | Articles From This AuthorA quiet patriot motivated by an intolerant government who is intent on trampling his Liberties and rights.
Comments
Wellescent Health Blog says:
November 20, 2009 at 7:13 pmWhile mammograms may reduce breast cancer mortality by 63%, the obviously missing information is the age group for which this applies. If it only reduces the rate by 1% in those under 50, then the costs versus benefit has to be considered. That does not mean that those who are concerned can’t get a test and pay for it out of pocket, it simply provides guidelines for most effective use of resources.
As far as “mysterious federal bodies” deciding your care, someone is going to make that decision and the only way that a person can be in charge of the decision is if they have the money. In many cases, people do not so their insurer makes the decision. Insurance companies aren’t going to cover tests and procedures unless they can charge enough to offset the costs. Similarly, governments are going to perform cost benefit analysis as well.
Gerald Biolchini says:
November 21, 2009 at 6:58 amSo admittedly rationing happens, that’s the premise of your argument? When of course gov run health care was not supposed to ration. Conservatives were decired as fools for thinking it.
So if rationing happens, for any system, this merely supports the argument that health care is not a right. Its a resource or a commodity. To be bought, traded, or sold, as one can only ration a resource. My right to free speech is not rationed, nor is my right to assembly, protest, and so on. They can be illegally restricted, but not rationed.
Furthermore no one should be making that decision. If I want a test done should I not be able to pay for it? Having the government decide what is best for me or you is better then having an insurance company? I merely traded one tyrant for another….this time I have no control because I can’t take my money else where.
David Hinz says:
November 21, 2009 at 7:40 amWellescent, you make a good argument for putting the money and the decision into the hands of the individual instead of either the insurance company or the government. When the individual pays the bills, they make the decisions on what tests are needed and when. Obviously you would agree, from your statement that Health Saving Accounts would be the answer — at least for most Americans — along with catastrophic insurance — allowing them to be in charge of their own medicine.
As for insurance companies making those rationing decisions — insurance company decisions can be challenged — and changed — while government edicts work on a much slower time frame.
I know of many cases where an insurance company has at first denied a claim — only to pay for it after being challenged. With moderate reforms of the insurance laws — including measures to allow for greater competition within and across state barriers, and reform of pre-existing condition regulations — the private sector could easily provide the changes necessary to meet the American public needs.
Government edicts are much more difficult to change — slower to respond — and subject to, how shall we say, political pressures that we do not want or need when discussing health issues.
The fact that you are so willing to throw away freedoms for the nanny-ism of the state is discomforting.