So You Want European Style Health Care......

"Let's see. John Doe is 75 and needs chemotherapy? Cost of chemo is $20,000 divided by 75 x 5 year life expectancy x .005 per cent of success" equals 6,667 points. Minimum number of points to qualify is 7,000. Therefore, the application is denied. He's probably dead anyway. This application is 6 months old. Hey, let's break for lunch"



How many times have you heard someone say, "Why can't we have health care like those Europeans (They're so sophisticated, you know)?" Actually, that is precisely what President Obama wants to do with his health care plan. He wants to fight the high cost of health care by setting up a government committee (made up of doctors and experts) that would set guidelines for what type of medical procedures and medications would be approved for specific patients. Cost effectiveness is, of course, the major consideration. If that sounds reasonable to you so far, how does the phrase "health rationing" sound to you? That is precisely where we are headed. What it boils down to is that this "committee of doctors and experts" would utilize a formula that compares the cost of the drug or treatment with the patient's age and other variables. What comes out of the mix is a decision from Washington to grant or deny you care. If you don't like HMOs, this is HMOs on steroids.

If you want an example, you need look no further than Great Britain, which has something called the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). That is what they do in the UK. It's what normal people would call health care rationing. Check out their web site.


http://www.nice.org.uk/#


Let's say, for example, that your doctor is considering using a particular drug to treat the initial stages of Alzheimer's Disease. He/she must refer to a 67-page report issued by the nice people at NICE that uses a formula based on points which considers a whole range of factors including of course, the patient's age. It means that even if your doctor feels the drug or treatment would work on a particular patient, the final decision is made by the nice people at NICE. If it is approved, great. If not......oh well, you were too old anyway.

Remember Tom Daschle, Obama's would-be secretary of Health and Human Services? This is exactly what he was advocating.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-tom-daschle/progressive-solutions-to-_b_89590.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123060332638041525.html

One of the scariest ideas that Obama has proposed is the National Health Insurance Exchange, a new bureaucracy that would "help you purchase health insurance" (just what we need), but would also computerize everything related to every person's health issues. They would also work to reduce health costs-just like those nice people in the UK who work for NICE.

So we are faced with a decision. Do we want to resort to health rationing with all the implications it entails. Are we ready to deny health treatment to our elderly and infirm because it is not cost effective? Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of our health care costs are for the elderly. Should we, as Tom Daschle suggests, be prepared to make the hard choices on health care?

As someone who just lost his 88-year-old mother after seven years of intensive health care treatment following a stroke, I say no. If we go in this direction, we are going in the same direction as we have on abortion. We are making a choice that some one's life is not cost effective. In short, we will lose our soul. Let us not forget that elderly people do have their own say on whether to continue battling for life-or hopefully, they have a loved one able to execute their wishes if they are incapacitated. We cannot let the government intrude into this arena.

But, you say, Obama's committee will be composed partly by doctors. Surely they will sign off on what the personal physician recommends.

I don't think so. Once they go to work for the government, their job description is to save the government money-and that's what they will do. And if Grandma has to wait 6 months for an operation-as in the UK-or doesn't get that operation because of her age, that's too bad. The sick and elderly often don't get certain operations because the doctor determines that they wouldn't survive the surgery due to their age and weakened condition-or the patient makes the decision him/herself. But once cost effectiveness enters the picture, we lose something as a people. What comes next-euthanasia?

But, you say, we would never go that far. We're too civilized for that.

Take a look at The Netherlands.

Are you sure we want to be like the Europeans?