In 2008 Democrats got complete control of the federal government. At one point they had a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate. Rhis led directly to the passage of ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. A majority of Americans was so repulsed they handed the House back to Republicans in 2010. Republicans want to rid the country of this albatross, even as Democrats aim to use it as the vehicle to get health care under complete federal control. So who's got the better argument? Here's the latest from England, where they've had government-run healthcare for decades.
Last week the National Health Service (NHS) announced they would begin rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions. So what are the non-urgent conditions being rationed? Here's a list provided by the UK Guardian:
- Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
- Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.
- Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain," ulceration or bleeding.
- Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
- Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.
- Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS."
Now while many of you might focus on the particular treatments that are being rationed themselves, your trusty writer is more inclined to focus on the weasel words contained in the above list. Weasel words that give a bureaucrat plenty of leeway to deny treatment in order to save the government money. Hip and knee replacements for people in "severe pain?" How does one determine that — exactly? Ask a patient to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10? Watch them hobble and see if it makes them wince or moan a prerequisite number of times?
And what about "overweight?" How fat is fat, and how many pounds does one have to lose — in addition to being in severe pain — before being granted the privilege of walking without limp? Cataract surgery only when one's ability to work is "substantially" affected? Get to the back of the line, retirees. As for varicose vein sufferers, it seems like "ulceration and bleeding" is your best bet. "Chronic continuous pain" is one again in the eye of the government beholder.
Tonsillectomies? I'm betting a kid with six bouts of tonsillitis waiting for number seven, may have some anxious moments, especially around late December when one is pushing up against that yearly limit, and the threshold gets re-set to zero. Moving on to grommets, known in America as tubes put into children's ears to prevent a fluid build-up that affect hearing, it would appear one has to be "exceptionally" hard of hearing (dare I say deaf?) in order to qualify. And even if one is truly "exceptional," such exceptionalism must be endured for at least half a year. In Vitro Fertilization? Maybe yes maybe no, maybe dependent on how many gimpy, fat, varicose-veined, partially deaf or blind people can be disqualified first. After all, fair is fair.
And that's now. Apparently one-in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) expanded their lists of "non-urgent" care in the last twelve months. What do the next twelve months hold in store? How about the next ten years?
71-year-old Ann Ball, a retiree, gives us a clue. "I have bilateral cataracts and under the original NHS criteria I was entitled to have at least one of mine treated," she said, "but then the West Sussex health authorities decided to change the threshold level to save money. It's like looking through gauze. Everything is foggy, and I've got quite a large 'floater' in my left eye. The consultant was as distressed as me, having to tell me, and he thought with my eyesight he wouldn't be able to function."
"I'm not a cranky old lady," she adds.
Maybe she is and maybe she's not. But one has to also wonder if one's disposition can also be factored into decisions about one's treatment. For example, do the proverbial squeaky wheels get the hip-replacement grease? Can one bribe their way to better eyesight or hearing?
If one has the means, a trip to a country with top-notch health care could solve the problem. For instance in 2009, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz al Saud of Saudi Arabia, dropped into the Big Apple to have his surgery. "He's one of the wealthiest royals in the world, and he could have chosen to have his surgery anywhere in the world, said Matthew Kolb, President of Carson Kolb Healthcare Group, Inc. "Yet, he flew over several other Westernized countries in order to have his surgery in New York. It shows what the world thinks about American medicine when the rubber meets the road."
The rubber is meeting the road for plenty of people in England. Unfortunately, the "non-urgent" are being turned away because the government-run system needs to save money. Government-run healthcare in America? An America already drowning in government debt? Too bad stupid isn't surgically treatable condition.
