|  |
|
All messages are published
with permission of the sender.
The general topic of this message is Health:
|
|
Subject:
Health Care
To:
President Barack Obama
Sen. Mary Landrieu
Sen. David Vitter
Rep. Steve Scalise
October 20, 2009
Mr President, your arrogance, your refusal of transparency and total ignorance and/or respect for the American "Way of Life" are sickening.
HR 3200 or any other bill dreamed up are convoluted legal documents that I suspect most attorneys would have trouble with.
At the time a medical student examines his first patient, he is reminded constantly of the wisdom: "First do no harm". It is a warning that Congress should itself heed. It is unfathomable to me that those in Congress believe they have the knowledge, experience, and wisdom to completely overhaul the manner in which payment for medical services is provided. The fact that Congress has undertaken such an endeavor in an expedited manner indicates to me a degree of hubris that is unlike any I have ever witnessed. By proceeding in this fashion Congress will undoubtedly produce an outcome far worse than the original problem itself.
Everyone agrees that there are issues related to the affordability, portability, and accessibility of health insurance. But what no one knows or can predict is the consequences of the proposals now before Congress. Why would the members of Congress believe they could create major changes to 17% of the nation's economy and perfectly predict the outcome one will get - the outcome as to cost of care, quality of care, and accessibility of care?
There are not enough doctors, nurses, or allied healthcare personnel to care for a 10 to 15% increase in patient volume. Yet, nowhere in the discussed proposals is this question addressed. It takes ten or more years to change the medical educational system to produce more physicians. Recently, when this 'manpower shortage' was questioned in the media, those in favor of a major overhaul have argued that there would be no major increase in utilization because the majority of the uninsured are young and healthy. If that is the case, why is it a crisis to change healthcare in such a rush to insure these healthy youngsters? Based on prior Congressional programs one can predict that if a program is 'passed', it will be more costly and less effective than predicted.
Why care if the proposed programs are not perfect? The answer to that question is hopefully clear to Washington: The United States is universally regarded as having the most advanced medical care in the world. There is a reason that more than 400,000 foreigners travel to the United States each year to undergo treatments and procedures. Radically changing a successful system is risky business, but Congress seems oblivious to the risks involved. America is the incubator from which medical advancements hatch. New approaches to drugs, care and techniques have produced improved outcomes and significant cost savings to society. The rest of the world then followes our example. In heart disease care alone, there are 400,000 fewer deaths per year than there were in 1970.
There is no doubt that the proposals currently being debated in Washington will produce an end to the era of American Exceptionalism in Medicine - ask any doctor. The legacy of the 111th Congress will be the death of American Medical Exceptionalism if it passes any of the current health care proposals.
Confidence in the government's ability to manage a significant change in healthcare would be much greater if the government could demonstrate that it can fix the problems that currently exist in its present programs. Why not take the next two or three years and concentrate on the fraud and abuse in these government programs and prove to the American people the government can get results, not just make promises?
The manner in which a proposed program is framed is an excellent indicator of the advocator's beliefs. President Obama has falsely characterized medical profession as taking into consideration what they will be reimbursed in making clinical decisions and only places like the Mayo Clinic base decisions on "what is best for the patient." This statement is a vicious attack on the ethical values of physicians and is so egregious it does not even deserve a comment. The use of rhetoric like this has only one purpose, not to disseminate the facts but to distort them to obtain a goal - in this case the President's vision of medical care. By demonizing physicians (and the insurance industry) as 'money grubbing' individuals, the administration seeks to gather support from the public. My disappointment in the President is only exceeded by my disappointment that no one in Congress stood tall and said - those statements are wrong!
One can intelligently debate issues without purposefully giving false statements to embellish one's argument as the President so often does and no Congressman refutes, except Joe. One can only conclude that the healthcare debate is really about President Obama delivering on a major social issue and not about what is best for the average American who is quite satisfied with their own personal health insurance situation. Once again Washington is about who wins and who loses - the people have been forgotten.
Slidell , LA
|
Related Issue Alerts:
|
| |
