Maybe the death panel talk by Sarah Palin was NOT all BS. Look at what they are doing in Britain with their socialized National Health Service and how physicians are now upset and making charges.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a â€œnational crisisâ€ in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Lukeâ€™s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
Is this a lesson for the Obama Administration and health care reform?
Americans do NOT want this nightmare.
Mr. President, LESS government in health care – NOT MORE.
Flap does not want some Obamacare government bureaucrat in Washington pulling the plug on my life or that of my loved ones.
Conservatives for Patients Rights Action Fund today kicks off a $1 million+ television ad campaign featuring prominent British and Canadian doctors who warn of patients actually dying as they wait for care, and of losing control of their own health care choices in a society where the government has taken over the health care system. The ads detail how the United States Congress has begun copying government-run health care policies which failed in these countries.
The summer Congressional health care reform game is afoot. Today Conservatives for Patient’s Rights Action fund begins a $ million ad campaign.
A conservative group opposed to President Barack Obamaâ€™s plans for health care reform launched Thursday a $1.2 million television advertising campaign slated to run through the July 4 recess.
The 30-second spot, set to run on Fox News Channel and CNN, blasts Obamaâ€™s push for a government-run, public insurance plan as a part of any health care reform legislation. The ad buy was placed by Conservatives for Patientsâ€™ Rights, a group that operates both as a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4).
The ad features video of a bulldozer crushing written text that reads: â€œHEALTH CARE CHOICE.â€
Here is the latest ad:
Stay tuned as the media wars continue to heat up.
So says the latest Rasmussen poll.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of U.S. voters say cutting the deficit is the most important of the four priorities the president cited in a speech to Congress in February, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thatâ€™s up from 32% in March.
At the same time, 24% rate health care reform as the most important of Obamaâ€™s priorities, down from 29% in the earlier survey.
But a growing number of voters (63%) â€“ up from 54% in March – also see cutting the deficit in half as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.
Just after the presidentâ€™s speech, 42% named deficit reduction as the top priority while 24% said health care.
Americans voters fail to see the utility of Obamacare. In other words: “What’s in it for me?”
The last time Congress tried to overhaul the health care system, most Americans didnâ€™t see any personal stake in it, other than possibly the rationed care the critics warned them about.
Today, White House officials gave another example of how theyâ€™re going to help lawmakers make a better case this time. They released a report predicting that most Americansâ€™ income will go up if the federal government can get health care costs under control.
The report, â€œThe Economic Case for Health Care Reform,â€ by the Council of Economic Advisers, predicts that the annual income for a typical family of four would be $2,600 higher in 2020 than it would have been without an overhaul â€” and nearly $10,000 higher in 2030. Thatâ€™s because the increases in efficiency and lower deficits would help the economy grow faster than it would have otherwise, according to the report.
There is nothing but higher taxes and SLOWER economic growth as a result of Obamacare in the future and Americans know that the Obama Administration is spinning the issue.
There has been something very odd about the logic of the Democratsâ€™ case on health-care reform the past few months. Rather than focus on access and the uninsured, as they have usually done and as Obama did during the campaign, theyâ€™re talking about their massive expansion of the governmentâ€™s role in American health insurance as a way to save money, and focusing a lot of attention on the (unquestionably pressing) need to control health care costs. The trouble is, they donâ€™t actually have any plan to control health-care costs.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report this morning that offers a good example of this peculiar approach. Itâ€™s basically a 50-page explanation of how wonderful it would be if we could reduce the rate of growth of health-care spending. Itâ€™s called â€œThe Economic Case for Health Care Reform,â€ and it makes a strong case. But itâ€™s not a case for Obama-style health-care reform. In fact, the examples it offers of the causes of rising health-care costs are mostly examples of government-driven inefficiency, especially in Medicare, which hardly argues for a government run insurance â€œoption.â€
This is a very interesting tactic by Obamacare universal health care system advocates to promote long term cost savings by allowing the government to have more control of the health care system. You see the federal government already controls 50 per cent of the system with Medicare but Obama wants to control it all. To think that Obama and Democrats argue that entitlement costs will be reduced by creating a vast NEW ENTITLEMENT does not make any sense.
Flap does not think Obamacare will go very far in this Congress.
But, 40 per cent say no.
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans favor increasing taxes on beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages to help provide health insurance for every one in the country.
Forty percent (40%) are against such tax increases, and 10% are not sure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of women support more taxes on alcohol, compared to 42% of men. Both men and women under the age of 40 are more supportive of higher taxes on alcoholic beverages than their elders.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats think an increase in so-called â€œsin taxesâ€ on alcohol is a good idea, but 54% of Republicans disagree. Adults not affiliated with either major party are closely divided on the question.
But, the problem with sin taxes is that consumption may decrease as the taxes increase. So, overall tax revenue may remain flat. The government cannot really rally an expensive Obbamacare restructing of the American health care system based on beer and wine sales.
Then, there is the problem of bootlegging from Mexico and the soverignity of the American Indian reservations where folks won’t pay any tax at all.
Raising sin taxes to fund Obamacare or socialized medicine = FAIL.
Technorati Tags: Obamacare
Thirty-two percent (32%) of American adults say theyâ€™d be willing to pay higher taxes so that health insurance could be provided for all Americans. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 54% say theyâ€™re not willing to pay more in taxes.
Most Democrats (54%) are willing to pay higher taxes to expand health care coverage. Most Republicans (77%) are not. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 29% are okay with the higher tax bill and 60% are not.
Other recent polling shows that just 35% of Americans rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. However, 70% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent.
Most folks would love to see their neighbor have universal medical care – as long as THEY don’t have to pay for it.
This will be the major obstacle to President Obama’s attempt at reforming the health care system (Obamacare) – shifting the costs to society or, in other words, nationalism or socializing the system like in Canada and the United Kingdom.
U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a statement on health care reform to the media on the South Drive near the Oval Office of the White House in Washington May 13, 2009. With Obama are (L-R) Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Charlie Rangel
(D-NY)The war over Obamacare or President Obama’s universal health care reform has started.
Hospitals and insurance companies said Thursday that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier this week to reduce the growth of health spending.
Mr. Obama invited health industry leaders to the White House on Monday to trumpet their cost-control commitments. But three days later, confusion swirled in Washington as the companiesâ€™ trade associations raced to tamp down angst among members around the country.
After meeting with six major health care organizations, Mr. Obama hailed their cost-cutting promise as historic.
â€œThese groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment,â€ Mr. Obama said. â€œOver the next 10 years, from 2010 to 2019, they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year â€” an amount thatâ€™s equal to over $2 trillion.â€
Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.
â€œThereâ€™s been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members,â€ said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. â€œIâ€™ve spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it.â€
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said â€œthe president misspokeâ€ on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industryâ€™s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: â€œI donâ€™t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industryâ€™s commitment.â€
If anyone thinks the private health care industry is going to troll over for Obamacare, you have another thing coming. Obama’s proposal is for an eventual government take over of America’s health care industry. It is an end around and the bureaucratic corporations are now just realizing their demise in the grand scheme.
Look for limited cooperation from the health care beomouths of PHARMA and the AMA – just enough to not look like obstructionists.
And, cost controls? Who is going to enforce it?
What a joke. they cannot control ther own costs.
Technorati Tags: Obamacare
How does drinking soda relate to childhood obesity? Richard F. Daines, M.D., New York State’s Health Commissioner, explains why more milk consumption and a tax on sugar based soda are better for kids’ health.
There will have to be a helluva lot more soda consumed to pay for Obamacare.
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.
Reducing consumption of sugary drinks will certainly help obesity and dental health. However, I really cannot foresee any beverage tax coming anywhere close to paying for ANY socialized universal health care system the way President Obama has envisioned.
To think so, is just plain stupid. But, you know bureaucrats and big government folks – like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama.
Pretty soon, the government will attempt to restrict the amount of calories an American can consume a day since everyone will be paying for government run health care. You know, less calories, more health, less death – more years to pay taxes to the state.
It is all good, right?
Canadian physician Dr. Brian Day discusses the Canadian Socialized healthcare system
A new website is up: The Faces of Government Healthcare
Before Congress considers any form of government-run health care, they should hear the voices of patients denied care because the government deemed it too costly or delayed care because of long waiting lists for surgery or diagnostic tests.
Any serious discussion of health care reform that does not include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility â€” the four “pillars” of patients’ rights â€” will result in our government truly becoming a “nanny-state,” making decisions based on what is best for society and government rather than individuals deciding what is best for each of us.
Check it out…..
No, the Obama Administration will simply enter the medical marketplace and train more doctors.
Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.
The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.
One proposal â€” to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists â€” has touched off a lobbying fight.
Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors â€” a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.
Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Obamaâ€™s goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.
Every socialized plan by the Obama Administration and every argument for universal care leads to the main question: Who is going to pay for this?
Unless you ration the care like the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, bureaucratize care and have government price controls, universal health care is simply too expensive for the government to provide. Even with that the NHS provides abysmal care with horror stories at least once a week in the U.K. press.
Now, the Obamacare advocates are worried about the number of primary care physicians. They might want to address the question as to how many doctors will continue to practice if they radically change the health care system in the United States?
The government run National Health Service in Britain is now sending its own hospital staff for private medical care. (Via Ed Morrissey)
The money was used to bring in physiotherapists to help workers recover from muscular-skeletal injuries at West Suffolk Hospital in Bury St Edmunds.
Bosses said it prevented them from leapfrogging NHS patients and enabled them to return to work more quickly.
However, the private treatment, which amounted to Â£12,116 for 271 appointments over the past year, was described by critics as “shocking”.
Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “Their staff should have to wait like everybody else.
Well, the hospital staff are NOT stupid. They desired timely care which with the NHS and all socialized medicine schemes does NOT happen.
Britain has been struggling with their National Health Service for years and dentistry is slowly evolving into a private system.
America’s private health care system has plenty of detractors but send Americans to Canada or Britain for a while and they will see a stark contrast between accessible care and rationed care.