Bold Colors Blog

Stickin’ it to the libs, one day at a time

Posts Tagged ‘Socialized medicine’

Socialized medicine and prescription prices

Posted by Liberty on March 16, 2009

Canadians Pay 2X As Much For Generic Drugs

Take a look at Carpe Diem today.  If more people did, socialized medicine would never be imposed on the American people.

“The evidence suggests that generic retail drug prices are higher in Canada than they are in the United States because of various provincial and federal policies in Canada that are not found in the US.”

Posted in Conservatism, Educate yourself, Health care, International news, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Socialist economics, Socialized medicine | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Stimulating the destruction of health care as we know it.

Posted by Liberty on February 10, 2009

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

The Senate is poised to pass Obama’s massive “socialize America” stimulus plan.  Thanks to human jellyfish pseudo Republicans like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, news blips everywhere will praise the bill’s passing as “bipartisan.”  The unfortunate thing is that there is policy buried in this stimulus that will change the course of our society as we know it. 

Most people don’t even have a clue–they’ve bought the Obama bill of goods that the stimulus will build roads and schools.  Obama has done this country a major disservice by doing his best to shut down discussion on this bill.  If there had been a more honest, open debate, perhaps more people would know about the back-door transition to socialized medicine that’s been included under the guise of improving our economy.  Here I reference a piece that was published yesterday on  Betsy McCaughey has done the work that the celebutard pre-occupied main stream media has refused to do.  Debate rages about Jessica Simpson’s weight gain, Alex Rodriguez’s steriod use and whether or not some R&B artist beat up his girlfriend when it should be focused on the fraud being perpetrated upon us all.  The numbers included in the quotes I’ve pulled from Ms. McCaughey’s article are the page numbers in the  H.R. 1 EH, pdf version.

“The bill’s health rules will affect ‘every individual in the United States’ (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what [Tom] Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and ‘learn to operate less like solo practitioners.’”

I don’t know about you but I trust my doctor.  That’s why I go to her instead of down to the DMV when I need medical care.  If you’re wondering what exactly it means to have the federal government “guide” your doctor’s decisions, read on.


“Hospitals and doctors that are not ‘meaningful users’ of the new system will face penalties.  ‘Meaningful user’ isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose ‘more stringent measures of meaningful use over time’ (511, 518, 540-541).

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the ‘tough’ decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept ‘hopeless diagnoses’ and ‘forgo experimental treatments,’ and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.”

Is this what you want?  To accept a “hopeless diagnosis” like a European?  To just give up?  What about hope?  Isn’t hope the very thing we’re supposed to have now that Obama has been elected?

“Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.”

Quick, can somebody tell me who the AARP endorsed in the 2008 Presidential election?

The hypocrisy here is simply appalling.  These same “compassionate” liberals that don’t believe in killing terrorists and think that every child should start the day with taxpayer-funded Lucky Charms are implementing policy that will deny medical treatments for the elderly.  How long is it going to be before the doctor approaches the family gathered around dear old aunt Mary’s bedside and says, “The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research says there’s nothing more we can do.  I think it’s time to put her down.”

“If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. ‘If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,’ he said. ‘The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.'”

Arrogance!  Unbelievable arrogance!  Not only does Daschle think that he is above paying taxes, he believes you should not have a say on the implementation of socialized medicine.  Don’t comfort yourself for a second by thinking that at least Daschle has withdrawn his nomination.  That isn’t going to slow this plan down in the least.  The Senate is scheduled to vote today.  You can still call them.

Update, 11:22 am

The bill passed.  Our only hope for stopping this is in the conference committee now.  I thought of two things since I originally posted this morning.  Liberals whipped themselves into a hysteria over the Bush administration’s wire taps on suspected terrorists.  Civil libertarians were absolutely crazed over it.  Do you think they’ll have a problem with a federal bureaucracy over-seeing our health care? 

Also, what about the “my body, my choicer’s?”  They want choice when it comes to killing babies and under Obama’s plan, that’s one option that will probably always be there.  But what will your choices be when the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research dictates your treatment for diabetes, arthritis, kidney stones or any other condition to your doctor?  Why is it important for you to have the choice to kill babies but not to choose what course of treatment is best for cancer, MS or neo-natal care?

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Bureaucratic ineptitude, Celebutards, Constitutional Rights, Health care, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Slavish media bias, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Socialized medicine, Stupid legislation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Free flip flops anyone?

Posted by Liberty on January 2, 2009

Boozy Britain’s bloody New Year: A 999 call every seven seconds in alcohol-induced mayhem

I’m just going to warn you now, there are some rather graphic photos in this article.  If you’re bloodaphobic or pukeaphobic, you may want to skip this one.  Aren’t you glad you don’t have to depend upon socialized medical care [yet] like the Brits when you have something serious to recover from…like New Years’ Eve?

Socialism = “free” flip-flops

Posted in Crime and Punishment, Liberalism, Socialized medicine | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Concerned about prescription drugs?

Posted by Liberty on December 15, 2008

Dr. Daschle’s Dubious Cure

“By choosing a seasoned Washington operator like former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle as secretary of health and human services, President-elect Barack Obama has made his health care priorities clear. He will promote an aggressive legislative agenda with far-reaching effects not only on health care services and insurance, but also on the makers of drugs and medical devices, pharmacy benefits managers (third party administrators of prescription drug programs), and clinical research organizations, which conduct clinical testing of new drug candidates, under contract from drug companies.

The three major themes of health care reform under the new administration will likely be (1) mandatory national health care coverage, (2) additional power and responsibilities for the FDA, ostensibly to ensure greater drug safety, and (3) reduction of health care costs. There will thus be a push for incentives to encourage the use of generic drugs (at the expense of branded drugs) through a multi-tiered formulary model, patent reform, and new mandates for the FDA.”

Posted in Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Socialized medicine | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

WSJ Commentary on the mythical uninsured

Posted by Liberty on November 21, 2008

What Do We Really Know About the Uninsured?

William Snyder points out some interesting facts that are being left out of the socialized medicine debate.  For instance:

“Many Americans believe that the uninsured are too poor to purchase coverage and that government programs aren’t available to them. But a study published in Health Affairs in November 2006 estimated that 25% of the uninsured were in fact eligible for public coverage, and another 20% probably could afford coverage on their own. If we apply those percentages to today’s uninsured population, roughly 25 million people would need assistance in order to get health insurance.”

“A study published by the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) in April 2000 found that, of the uninsured California residents whose household income was at least twice the poverty level, 50% (about 1.3 million) had received care in the last year for which they were charged, and another 8% had received care for which they weren’t charged. The study also found that 89% of these people were either somewhat or very satisfied with the care they received, and that only 15% went to the emergency room versus a doctor’s office or clinic when they got sick.

Another recent study, published in Health Affairs in August, had similar findings, and estimated that uninsured Americans will receive $86 billion worth of health care in 2008.”

“These two studies also provide evidence that disputes the free-rider myth. The CHCF study found that of the 1.3 million uninsured who received care for which they were charged, 80% had paid for it, and almost half of the remaining 20% were paying in installments. The study published in Health Affairs estimated that the uninsured would pay for $30 billion of their health-care costs this year — more than one-third — out of pocket.”

Posted in Redistribution of wealth, Socialized medicine | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The U.K.’s socialized medical system–childrens’ hospitals “worse than the developing world”

Posted by Liberty on November 21, 2008

Scandal of care at top children’s hospital

“Treatment at one of Britain’s leading children‘s hospitals is worse than that in the developing world, according to a damning doctors’ report uncovered by The Observer which also reveals how parents are “told lies” to cover up sub-standard care.”

Posted in Redistribution of wealth, Socialized medicine | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

A scary consequence of socialized medicine

Posted by Liberty on November 19, 2008

Socialized Medicine Can Kill You

“Jack Rosser’s doctor says taking Pfizer’s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.’s National Health Service says that’s not worth the expense. “

Americans, we need to proceed with extreme caution when it comes to health care reform!  Cursory research into socialized health systems in countries such as Great Britain and Canada will yield frightening stories like that of Jack Rosser. 

I’m not a Pollyanna about this issue–having had some work experience in an industry related to health care, there are certainly things that need to be done to improve health care in the U.S.  But, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.  America has one of the safest medical industries in the world and it goes hand in hand with the standard of living that we enjoy here.  Our standard of living is so good because we are a fundamentally Capitalist nation, although we have more government interference in our markets than we need. 

My plea for free market solutions may fall on deaf ears but I’m going to make it anyway.  Putting the federal government in charge of health care is not a good idea–central planners in Washington D.C. don’t know what is best for you and your health.  Patients and their families and doctors need to be empowered to make decisions about care, not bureaucrats.  No existing government program gives me any confidence that they can or should handle health insurance.  Not Social Security–it’s practically bankrupt.  According to its own website, Social Security benefits are fully payable until 2041 at current levels.  And we’re on the brink of a massive wave of baby boomer retirements.  In not too many years, there will be more people drawing SS benefits than there are workers paying in.  Hmm…and I thought Amway was the most insidious pyramid scheme out there. 

Same with Medicare.  Have you seen the commercials–seniors can get a power chair with no out of pocket cost if they have Medicare.  I’m willing to bet by the time I’m checking out shiny new power chairs, Medicare will be broke.  Instead of trusting the same federal government that brings you the Post Office, The Bureau of Land Managment and the TSA, we need to reform our existing health care system.

Posted in Redistribution of wealth, Socialized medicine | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Dateline Oregon: How not to fix health care

Posted by Liberty on November 17, 2008

Blueprint outlines overhaul for health care

“Oregon should tax hospitals and health insurance companies to cover more than 100,000 uninsured children and 100,000 uninsured adults, a new state health care reform plan recommends.

The blueprint also proposes that the Legislature create an Oregon Health Authority to guide an overhaul of the state’s $19 billion health care industry with the goal of containing costs and giving all Oregonians affordable, quality health care within four years.”

“The plan would regulate hospital prices and insurance company administrative costs and raise cigarette and alcohol taxes to pay for public education and mental health services.”

A few of thoughts, in no particular order:

  • This plan is so bad, it could have been proposed in Washington State.  Washingtonians, look out, because Queen Christine probably has something like this up her sleeve.
  • Some people choose to be uninsured.  Are they planning on covering people who are voluntarily uninsured?  Insurance is a financial product used to manage risk.  Some people choose to accept the risk that they may have to pay for medical care.  We shouldn’t force coverage on the people who don’t think that they need it.
  • How about tort reform?  One of the largest expenses that doctors have is malpractice insurance.
  • Instead of instituting a Socialist medical system, how about making it easier for people to take responsibility for their own families? 
  • How about reducing state mandates for health insurance plans?  Not everyone needs plans that cover accupuncture, substance abuse treatment, birth control, gastric bypass, chiropractic care…let the consumer decide what they want to pay for!  [This is a huge problem in Washington State.  My own plan went up by over $30.00 a month because the Washington State Legislature made it mandatory for insurance plans to cover mental health care.  I think I’m smart enough to decide whether or not I need to purchase mental health coverage, thank you.] 
  • “regulate hospital prices and insurance company administrative costs”  Seriously?!
  • “Wouldn’t it be great,” he [Bill Kramer, a Portland health care management consultant] said, “if Oregon could be known for providing the best quality, most affordable health care in the country and attracted businesses here because we are the best?” 

I have a feeling that even higher taxes and having health care managed by bureaucrats will have exactly the opposite effect.  Health care reform needs to be based in the free market and needs to enable people to take responsibility for themselves.

Posted in Redistribution of wealth, Taxes | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »