Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Our Brother's Keepers? Not Quite!


It looks as if ObamaCare is running into snags that may postpone or even stop the passage of this massive health care reform effort. It appears that now even the Democrats are balking at the projected expenditures. But on a purely social level, I think The People are having trouble accepting this idea. It is coming down to a question of exactly how much do we want to to be forced to help our fellow citizens?

This bill will eventually put all of us into the same health care system. After all, the "boss" has said that we are all going to have to "sacrifice" a bit to do this. But how much do we each have to sacrifice? And more importantly, how much are we each willing to sacrifice, and for whom are we going to sacrifice?

Most of us feel we sacrifice each day. We get up, go to work, and "put in our time." Most of us feel that work "gets in the way of living." If we are going to sacrifice, it has to be for a good cause, doesn't it? What then is a good cause?

How about sacrificing for the smokers who have puffed for 50 years and can't stay out of the hospital? And how about the "drugies" who get heart infections from using dirty needles, or even how about for those who eat themselves into enormity, and just can't walk across the room anymore? Do most of us believe that personal sacrifice is worth it for these problems? Don't kid yourself those who are "towing the line," and trying to make their lives decent and fruitful don't believe it is. That's one good reason why this idea is going to fail. The people don't believe it is fair.

I don't think most of us are willing to give to people who just don't try to take care of themselves. It is probably OK for those who run into unfortunate problems that are out of their personal control, because we all have this risk, and would want help if it happened to us.

Then there are more difficult questions. How about sacrificing for the 88 year old with cancer who continues on dialysis for months before death? How about continued feeding for a totally demented person who doesn't even know his own family? All personal choices that we will all pay for under this proposed systems. Why are these questions important? Because if the government (WE) is paying for health care, we will have to pay for these things. Do we want to?

Then there are the proposed taxes on the wealthy. Why should we single out the most successful people in the society, to pay for this. They are paying enough already aren't they? The upper 3% of tax payers pay about 60% of the taxes to start with. What is a fair tax anyway?

I don't think anyone should be forced through taxes to give more of their life to the government than anyone else. Why should one person have to work through May to pay taxes, and other people only have to work through February to pay theirs. I think it is morally questionable to take more "life" from those who have achieved the most in this society, and force them to work through May for the government. This is simply a case of class warfare, and it is not much different than "picking" on a group of people because of another unique characteristic like maybe the color of their skin!

This scheme raises too many questions about the fundamental relationship of our government to its people and the relationship of the people to each other. We are a people who believe in individuality and personal freedom. The collectivist concepts in this maneuver are difficult to sell to us. Thank God they are difficult to sell, for that implies that there may still be hope for all of us for a better future.

James P. Weaver, M.D.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Obama Care. Humbug!



I have been watching the developments in the Obama Care parade, and I have not commented, because he talks about the "nay Sayers" in an effort to discredit us, but I can't keep quite anymore. Too much astute distortion and half truths are flooding the airways that something must be said about this "obamination."I listened to most of his speech to the AMA. Listening to the applause of that bunch of sycophants, hoping that the income of the primary care doctors will be raised, made me nauseated. They don't care what happens to the field of medicine, or the patients, because anyone with half a brain can see that Obama's vision of health care will be a catastrophe.

His first two methods of financing this debacle will be the EMR (electronic medical records), and preventive care. What a joke. I do believe the EMR will help transmit information so it is not duplicated, but that is a drop in the bucket. Who, may I ask, will pay for the installation of this technology into any of the offices? The software people have not had to deal with "maximal allowable charges" as medicine has, so we cannot pay their exorbitant fees.

But the biggest fallacy of Obama cost saving ideas is "preventive care." He thinks we are going to get everyone to eat right, stop smoking, and exercise. I guess if they earn less than $250,000 per year he will pay them to live healthy. He has no idea what the practice of medicine is about. I have been trying to get people to do this for 30 years. They do what they want to. Maybe the government will FORCE people to do these things. His ideas like this make me wonder how unrealistic his other ideas will be about this topic. It's brutally frightening!

As for malpractice reform, physicians didn't get the time of day from this highly trained lawyer. Any physician knows that many dollars are wasted in defensive medicine. I guess the lawyers stick together. More importantly,I worry that the most powerful man in the world cannot get the perspective of physicians that are being robbed by the malpractice insurance companies each year with exorbitant fees. Why don't the patients foot some of this bill? They could purchase a policy prior to any procedure, to cover "insurance." That policy could stipulate that Obama's sacred "caps" would not apply.

Another area which is dubious is the total lack of discussion of the physicians in these plans. After all, our government is about to enslave a group of highly trained,educated, hard working people to "give" their talents to other citizens for a government controlled fee. In controlling these "fees" the government has a fundamental conflict of interest: they're paying the bills and they can't afford it. It doesn't look good for the physicians.

Each time the government puts in another program in place, they split the medical profession along specialist and generalist lines to gain the "support" of medicine. There are many more primary care physicians than specialists; it's easier to get that training, and the lifestyle is easier. I had eight years of training after medical school myself to become a vascular surgeon. Obama has promised the primary care doctors "more" to get their support. The problem is that primary care doctors may be replaced by nurse practitioners and physician "extenders" in the new Obama care. Their work comes cheaper, and, after all, he plans to "save money" to pay for this thing by cutting expenses in the delivery of medical care.

Finally, I agree with him that something needs to be done. But let's first be honest with our citizens. I'm sorry folks, but we cannot all have everything we want from medical care and, I fear, everything we might need to stay alive and comfortable.We will have to ration.

My suggestion for a good start would be to control the third party bureaucracies, cap malpractice awards, tax alcohol, and cigarettes, and continue medical savings accounts, but get the third parties out of them. Finally, the Congress should not have access to any better medical care than the rest of the country.

James P. Weaver, M.D., FACS