How far will Health Rationing go?
How far can rationing go??? Is this how people in a civilized world think? It is a sad state of affairs when humans will dipose of people because they they think that they are too old to 'repair.'
They talk about having this standard..."justifiable clinical reason to not provide a treatment for certain age groups, not just older people, that will be O.K...." But how many times have we seen how wrong doctors can be. How far can rationing go? Britain Considers Denying Health Care Based on Age
Friday, May 6, 2005 12:45 a.m. EDT Britain Considers Denying Health Care Based on Age
A British ministry is proposing to deny medical treatment to patients based on age a move seen as the "ultimate end" for universal health care.
A spokesperson for The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said that "if there is a justifiable clinical reason to not provide a treatment for certain age groups, not just older people, that will be O.K., if this treatment would not work or could not be offered.
We have said there has to be clinical evidence when discriminating on grounds of age." Critics have raised concern that the policy could lead to the elderly being denied some services.
What’s happening in Britain – the rationing of medical care – and "what will happen here if the health care busybodies are able to force us into some sort of single- or third-party payer or nationalized system, is a convergence of demand crashing into finite supply," reports Investor’s Business Daily.
Socialist health care systems like those in Britain and Canada encourage people to seek more medical treatment than they would if they were paying for it themselves. As a result, the system cannot keep up with demand.
That’s why patients must wait longer to receive basic treatment in Britain, Canada and other nations than in the U.S.
In Canada, it takes 8 1/2 weeks to see a specialist after a referral, and another 9 to 12 weeks until the patient actually is treated by the specialist, according to IBD.
In a free market, decisions about who gets to see a doctor "are made by individuals," IBD states.
"When we pay out of our pocket, we limit our visits to only those where benefits exceed costs. Though employee-paid health care can encourage some overuse, we as a nation tend toward self-rationing. National health care systems don’t have that built-in disincentive against overuse.
"When this is the case, bureaucrats eventually have to step in and ration treatment. That’s the ultimate end for universal health care."
Commenting on the rationing proposal, Britain’s Birmingham Post said: "The fact that people in their 80s and 90s regularly undergo successful operations underlines how dangerous it would be to assume that old age automatically equates to a hopeless case."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/6/124249.shtml
posted by ARDS Survivor @ 6:21 PM
1 Comments:
I sometimes think that it goes beyond the insurance companies, though they are a huge problem.
When I was sick, I believe that my doctors did not do simple tests because I was on an HMO. But my original doctors were younger, just starting. Still, if you are a doctor, even if it is just to cover your butt when you present to the office with difficulty breathing and chest pains, you should get beyond the HMO.
I had to find another physician who was willing to treat me.
But in talking to people who have loved ones in the hospital for ARDS, some hospitals, some doctors, are so willing to give up so quickly.
Why? Is it because there is really no hope? Is it because they need the bed in ICU? Is it because they do not want to treat the patient with expensive drugs?
Yes, rationing occurs in the US too. Some will even admit and others will deny it. But I do not think a health care system like Canada's or Englands would change it.
Sadly, it is the trend everywhere to 'ration' and determine who is worthy of treatment.
Post a Comment
<< Home