Big Dogs House

A Woman’s Right To Choose

Jan 27, 2010 Political

Stay out of my uterus is one of the slogans the pro murder crowd likes to use. A woman’s body is her own and she can do with it what she wants. She has a right to privacy. Teen aged girls should be allowed to get abortions without their parents knowing about it. It is a woman’s right to choose.

Should she choose life like Sarah Palin did then she is excoriated.

But there are conflicting messages coming from the groups that advocate the right to choose and the status of a fetus. To the pro death crowd a fetus is not a life so aborting it is not murder and is no one’s business. Unless of course a pregnant woman is murdered. In that case, the court will go after the criminal for two counts of murder. How can you murder something that is not a life? If killing a pregnant woman is murdering her and her baby then how is abortion not murder of the baby?

A Florida woman had her right to choose taken away from her by a judge and her doctor. Samantha Burton, a cigarette smoker, was admitted to the hospital in what was thought to be premature labor. It turned out to be a false alarm. She wanted to leave but her doctor had other ideas. He told her that her smoking was placing her baby at risk and that she needed to be on bed rest or she risked a miscarriage.

Burton wanted to leave but her doctor went to court to keep her in the hospital where she could not smoke and would get her bed rest. A judge agreed and ordered her kept in the hospital because of the risk to her unborn child. Three days later she gave birth to a still born child.

Burton is appealing the judge’s order so that precedent is not set where judges can decide what is in the best interest of the woman or her baby. Before anyone brings up Terry Schiavo (not about a pregnant woman but about a judge deciding her fate), that was a dispute between family members where a judge had to decide between what each side presented as the patient’s wishes. This issue was very clear because Ms. Burton was able to take her own decisions.

Imagine if a judge ordered a woman not to have an abortion because it is a danger to the child. How many in the pro murder crowd would agree with that decision?

As far as Ms. Burton goes, she is free to take her own medical decisions. All patients have the right to refuse any and all treatment. If Ms. Burton wanted to not be on bed rest (she said she could be on bed rest at home, which is true) and wanted to continue smoking, no matter how distasteful or stupid that is, she is free to do just that.

How is it that no judge would consider taking away a woman’s right to choose an abortion but this judge felt it was OK to take away this woman’s right to choose not to follow the doctor’s advice?

It is important to reemphasize, patients have the right to refuse any and all treatment and the courts have no authority to override any such decision. As long as you are capable of making your own decisions then you have the last word. The ACLU, an agency I hardly ever agree with, is on the right side of this issue and Dr. Michael Grodin, a physician and professor of health law, bioethics and human rights at Boston University, had this to say:

…doctors should never resort to court orders.

“People have the absolute right to refuse treatment …,” Grodin said. “It’s unconscionable. … It’s an affront to women.”

Where are the pro choice people on this issue?

Source:
Breitbart

Share on Facebook

Tags: abortion, court order, doctors, judges, refused treatment

What’s Right, and What’s Wrong

Oct 1, 2009 Political

The Liberal Democrat wing of Congress keeps trying to put the square peg of a public option into the round hole that is health care, and cannot seem to grasp that it just won’t fit- I guess they are just not smart enough- perhaps they need healthcare to fix that stubborn moronic condition- if it turns out to be genetic, John Holdren will sterilize their families. Gladly- our own little Dr. Mengele is always glad to play God.

In the meantime, you might think that Congress would  actually look at what works, and what does not, in the world of Healthcare- but apparently, once the ideological concrete sets, no jackhammer of logic will work on it.

First, let’s look at what does not work- the Canadian public option.

When the pain in Christina Woodkey’s legs became so severe that she could no longer hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she’d need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she’d have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. ‘When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery,’ said Woodkey, 72. ‘They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor.’

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days. ‘I don’t have insurance. We’re not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada,’ Woodkey said. ‘It’s not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I’m happy to say the pain is almost all gone.’

online.wsj.com

What has to hurt almost as much as the pain itself is the dismissive attitude of cost- cutting bureaucrats- people that liberals say, like the yeti or UFOs, do not exist.  Waiting for treatment just has to suck- perhaps Congress should try that.

Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned. More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

online.wsj.com

Well there- the Canadian system sucks, that is plain- as the liberals are fond of saying, “The debate is settled.” but there must surely be something that does work, at least better than Canada, right? Anything is better than that.

And yes, there is something better-

Like every other country in Europe, Switzerland guarantees health care for all its citizens. But the system here does not remotely resemble the model of bureaucratic, socialized medicine often cited by opponents of universal coverage in the United States.

Swiss private insurers are required to offer coverage to all citizens, regardless of age or medical history. And those people, in turn, are obligated to buy health insurance.

That is why many academics who have studied the Swiss health care system have pointed to this Alpine nation of about 7.5 million as a model that delivers much of what Washington is aiming to accomplish — without the contentious option of a government-run health insurance plan.

In Congress, the Senate Finance Committee is dealing with legislation proposed by its chairman, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, which would require nearly all Americans to buy health insurance, but stops short of the government-run insurance option that is still strongly supported by liberal Democrats.

nytimes.com

Yes, folks, the Swiss system is better in many ways than the Canadian system, and has things to offer the US system that could be incorporated without destroying the whole system- after all this capitalistic system, while flawed, has led to medical breakthroughs that otherwise would not have happened without the system of profitability available here. Controlled greed can be a good thing- it drives innovation.

By many measures, the Swiss are healthier than Americans, and surveys indicate that Swiss people are generally happy with their system. Switzerland, moreover, provides high-quality care at costs well below what the United States spends per person. Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans.

And yet, as a potential model for the United States, the Swiss health care system involves some important trade-offs that American consumers, insurers and health care providers might find hard to swallow.

The Swiss government does not “ration care” — that populist bogeyman in the American debate — but it does keep down overall spending by regulating drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices. It also requires patients to share some costs — at a higher level than in the United States — so they have an incentive to avoid unnecessary treatments. And some doctors grumble that cost controls are making it harder these days for a physician to make a franc.

The Swiss government also provides direct cash subsidies to people if health insurance equals more than 8 percent of personal income, and about 35 to 40 percent of households get some form of subsidy. In some cases, employers contribute part of the insurance premium, but, unlike in the United States, they do not receive a tax break for it. (All the health care proposals in Congress would provide a subsidy to moderate-income Americans.)

nytimes.com

Good AND bad- as are most things, it seems there are pluses and minuses to even the Swiss plan. This is why we should cherry- pick what does work, and then apply this to our plans, instead of crafting something out of whole cloth that doesn’t fit. But apparently that doesn’t work for the Egos on Capitol Hill. Many, if not most, are working for their own glory, and barely have the people in mind when they plan these things.

There are also parts of the Swiss plan that some groups might find objectionable, like the elderly.

Unlike the United States, where the Medicare program for the elderly costs taxpayers about $500 billion a year, Switzerland has no special break for older Swiss people beyond the general subsidy.

“Switzerland’s health care system is different from virtually every other country in the world,” said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied the Swiss approach extensively.

nytimes.com

Yeahhhhhhhh- not so much- many older people need the Medicare subsidy, even though the roots of that program are socialist, as is Social Security and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid. But since the programs have been institutionalized in our society, they would be hard to root out, so they would need to be incorporated, not cut without a viable alternative.

The Swiss approach is also popular with patients like Frieda Burgstaller, 72, who says she likes the freedom of choice and access that the private system provides. “If the doctor says it has to be done, it’s done,” said Mrs. Burgstaller. “You don’t wait. And it’s covered.”

While many patients seem content, the burdens fall more heavily on doctors, especially general practitioners and pediatricians.

Dr. Gerlinde Schurter, Mrs. Burgstaller’s physician, says she feels squeezed by government regulators and insurance companies that have fought to hold down costs — most recently with a 15 percent cut in lab fees that forced her five-member group to lay off its principal technician.

Dr. Schurter also fears a so-called blue letter, a warning from an insurance company that she is prescribing too many drugs or expensive procedures.

If doctors cannot justify their treatments, they can be forced to repay insurers for a portion of the medical services prescribed. And while prescriptions are covered, the government has insisted that consumers fork over a 20 percent co-payment if they want brand-name drugs, rather than 10 percent for generics.

Similarly, the government health office also lowered reimbursements across the board for medical devices in 2006.

nytimes.com

Punishing Doctors is not a good thing, especially if you, as the government, are refusing to address the problem of  frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of Malpractice insurance. Tort reform has to be a pivotal part of this formula. If the doctors are going to have to earn less, so should the lawyers. The lawyers are a driver of the unnecessary overhead in terms of costs to insurance companies, and doctors. 

If you cannot control costs in all three of these areas, there will be no improvement- it has to be all three, or it will not work. Still, there is a downside in terms of cost, relative to the Swiss system.

Still, along with lower costs and the freedom to choose doctors come bigger bills for individual patients. On average, out-of-pocket payments come to $1,350 annually. That is the highest among the 30 countries tracked by the O.E.C.D. and well above the $890 average for the United States, which comes in second.

Then there are the hefty prices of the insurance policies themselves, which can top 14,000 Swiss francs a year for a family of four in Zurich, or about $13,600. That is roughly comparable to the national average annual premium for a family policy under employer-sponsored group plans in the United States, but in high-cost American cities the figure can be much higher.

Direct comparisons are hard to make, however, because in the American system, employers and employees share the cost of premiums, which are also exempt from individual and corporate income taxes.

nytimes.com

Good and bad- there is no system that fits everyone, so why try? What we need to do is find what fits the greatest amount of people.  There are parts of the Swiss system that are worth consideration- there might be other things that also merit discussion, but what Congress is attempting to do right now is to make sausage without a recipe, not a good idea at all, and doomed to failure. Even if they manage to actually make the sausage, there is absolutely no guarantee that we, as a nation, will be able to stomach what they are cooking up.

We really need to have a recipe before we begin to make this sausage.

Because we are going to have to chew on this for a long time, it needs to taste at least tolerable.

Share on Facebook

Tags: doctors, healthcare, patients, tort reform

Obama: Ask Doctors For Health Care Reform Prescription

Sep 17, 2009 Political

Barack Obama was at the University of Maryland today giving a campaign speech about his health care takeover plan. During the speech someone yelled “You Lie.” That person was removed by the police once again showing that America’s institutions of higher learning are only tolerant of all opinions if the people expressing them agree with the liberal philosophies of the school or are yelling at conservatives.

Obama was hawking the plan and his plan was to tell everyone that the people who oppose his plan are liars (ironic, isn’t it?) and that they should listen to the people who know more about it than any others:

See, I just want to point out, I think it’s telling, some of the people who are most enthusiastic about health care reform are the very medical professionals who have firsthand knowledge about how badly the system needs to change. (Applause.) So don’t — stop paying attention to the folks who are spreading false charges, crazy rumors about our plan. Pay attention to the health care experts — the doctors and the nurses who know our system best. (Applause.) WBAL Radio [emphasis mine]

So Barack Obama wants us to know that people who oppose his takeover plan are liars (from the speech; “Too many engage in scare tactics instead of honest debates.”) and using fear to keep the people from getting the health care insurance they deserve. He also wants us to know that we should listen to those who know the system best.

To me, this means that I should not be listening to Obama and the people in his party who are telling me to buy into this plan because it is the best thing since sliced bread. I should not be listening to the media wing of the Democratic party when it shills for Obama and tells me to accept this. I should not listen to those who say to ram it down my throat and make me accept it because I am too stupid to know what is best for me. I need to listen to the doctors and nurses who know the system best.

According to Obama doctors and nurses know this better than he does and they know it better than anyone else (if they know it best they must know it better than anyone else). Fair enough. I am a Registered Nurse and I do not like the plan. My wife is a Registered Nurse and she is not in favor of it. I have yet to meet any nurse or doctor who is in favor of it.

Admittedly, my sphere is small compared to the entire country. So let’s take a look at the bigger picture:

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

~snip~

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration’s claims that doctors are part of an “unprecedented coalition” supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a “majority of physicians want public and private insurance options,” and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday’s front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline “Doctors Go For Obama’s Reform.”

Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the “association representing the nation’s physicians” and what “many still regard as the country’s premier lobbying force” — is “lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama’s sweeping plan.”

The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA’s support of Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll’s finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting. Investor’s Business Daily

So it appears that Obama is lying when he says that he has the backing of the doctors. He has an endorsement from the AMA which, as this story points out, accounts for 18% of physicians and has lost membership since the endorsement. The AMA is a lobbying organization.

Obama said to listen to the doctors and nurses. Well in this case the doctors have spoken out and two-thirds of them do not approve. Additionally, 45% of them would consider leaving practice or retiring early if this thing passes.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama told us that we should listen to the people who know the health system best which means better than he or his followers. Those people, he told us, are the doctors and nurses.

The doctors are pretty clear on this issue. They do not want it and many would quit being a doctor if it passes.

The issue is clearer than ever for those of you who did not know what to do on this. All you have to do is follow the advice of Obama and listen to the doctors.

The doctors do not want this thing so we owe it to Obama (and to the doctors) to make sure they do not get it.

Others:
Gateway Pundit
Michelle Malkin

Share on Facebook

Tags: doctors, health care reform, lies, Obama, takeover

Pay To Play

Jul 30, 2009 Political

In the Healthcare debate, there is an internal battle going on, one where Physician-owned hospitals are seeking favoritism in the bill’s language and restrictions, and using a LOT of money to grease the skids. Probably the most egregious of these is located in McAllen, Texas, on the southern border.

Doctor owned hospitals can and do make a whole lot more money for doctors, because in addition to their fees for service, they naturally get a share of the hospital’s profits. This is a double edged sword in the medical world, and can be seen as a conflict of interest.

The gleaming, well-equipped Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, which has expanded to 503 beds from 30 in six years, has become a footnote in the health care debate. It was featured unflatteringly in a June article in The New Yorker about geographic disparities in health care spending, a story that President Obama has cited repeatedly in speeches and meetings.

The article, which is sharply disputed by hospital officials, posited that physician ownership provided “an unholy temptation to overorder” tests and procedures because doctors earn not only their fees but also a share of the hospital’s profits. At Doctors Hospital, where 353 of its 452 owners are physicians, net revenue amounted to $64 million in 2008.

Leading members of Congress have long been concerned about the potential for conflicts of interest, lapses in patient safety and cherry-picking of patients with the best insurance at the country’s 230 physician-owned hospitals. Past efforts to restrict ownership by doctors have stalled, but language to that effect is currently included in health care legislation in Congress, though in ways that are unlikely to hurt Doctors Hospital.

nytimes.com

Despite the unflattering story, the Doctors at the hospital are doing their best, feverishly throwing as much money as they legally can at the Democrats, in the hopes that they can receive preferential treatment.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected nearly $500,000 at a reception here on March 30, mostly from physicians and others affiliated with Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, financial disclosure records show.

The event was held at the home of a prominent McAllen developer, Alonzo Cantu, a hospital founder, investor and board member who has raised prodigious sums from the Rio Grande Valley for an array of Democrats.

Another event at Mr. Cantu’s home, in September 2007, brought in at least $800,000 for the committee’s House counterpart, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to disclosure reports. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was in attendance and cut a ribbon at the hospital’s new women’s center while in town.

nytimes.com

Yep, this hospital is a money machine, both for the doctors themselves, but also for the Democrats, who line up at the trough like the piggies they are. To be fair, the Republicans would like to shoulder in also, but they are in the out crowd this year. Still, this is one hospital that probably extracts your wallet in the first procedure, and proceeds from there. There does not seem to be a charitable bone in their body, unless the charity is doctor- related.

Representative Rubén Hinojosa, a Democrat whose district includes the hospital, said he set up some of the Capitol Hill meetings. Mr. Hinojosa said he never mentioned the campaign contributions and could not judge whether the money had opened doors.

But, he said, the hospital’s officials “are listened to,” adding, “Every chairman of a committee that has influence over them had meetings with them.”

The Senate Finance Committee has yet to release its final draft, but bills passed by two House committees would prevent the opening of new physician-owned hospitals by disqualifying them from receiving Medicare reimbursements. Existing facilities like Doctors Hospital would be grandfathered in.

nytimes.com

Yes- I am sure they would be- 1.3 million dollars has that effect when donated to the Democratic committees- this is a blatant pay to play scheme, and part of the reason the Healthcare plan is 1017 pages long, and as Rep. John Conyers, (an un-indicted crook)  has said,” needs two lawyers to read it.”

Whether or not there is cause and effect, some of the hospital’s beneficiaries have passionately supported its position. In November, the South Texas doctors raised nearly $60,000 for Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Houston. Last week, Ms. Lee, who has a physician-owned hospital in her district, inserted comments in The Congressional Record against restricting the hospitals’ growth. She did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Disclosure reports show that about 220 donors from the McAllen area contributed to the Senate Democratic committee for the March event. Receipts totaled at least $425,000, about 2 percent of the group’s collections for the first half of the year.

nytimes.com

Yes, all the little piggies are busy lining up for their swill, Jackson- Lee foremost among them.  I guess that when the Resident said that lobbyists would have no influence in his administration, he was just kidding, right? I mean, what would you call this action on the part of this Hospital alone, and you have to know that there are many more physician- owned Hospitals who are doing their own influence buying, and that is exactly what it is. Okay, maybe it is just renting, but the intent is still the same- to come out of this Health fiasco as intact as possible, and hopefully in better shape than before.

I just don’t know why they didn’t just name the Hospital after their patron saint, Gordon Gekko- then they could inscribe his immortal words on the front of the Entranceway.

” Greed is Good.”

Share on Facebook

Tags: criminal behavior, doctors, government influence, greed, hospital