OpEd Contributor

[Print]  [Email]        

Commentary: Let's not forget the human cost of health care reform

By: Sen. Jim DeMint
OpEd Contributor
March 15, 2009

In Great Britain last year, a 24-year old woman named Katie Hilliard was diagnosed with cervical cancer. The disease has since spread to her lungs and lymph nodes. In October, she took time off from her course of chemo and radiation therapy to marry her fiancée because, in her words, “We didn’t know how ill I would get.”       

The family of Claire Everett does know. She died in September, of the same disease, with her parents, husband, and two-year old son by her side. She was 23.
 
Both could have been diagnosed early and possibly saved by a routine screening test. But the British National Health Service does not allow women under the age of 25 to receive that test.
 
These kinds of stories are commonplace in nations with government-controlled health care, with good reason. As the miracle workers in the global medical research field develop treatments to keep us alive and healthy much longer than ever before, the costs of health care inevitably rise. Government health services looking to cut costs usually choose to ration coverage.
 
In Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, and elsewhere, government bureaucrats decide which patients may receive which treatments based on how beneficial the treatment will be – beneficial to the government, that is, not the patient.
 
The process by which government health departments decide who gets what is called “Comparative Effectiveness Research” (CER). And you might be surprised to know there was more than $1 billion allocated for CER in the so-called economic stimulus bill passed last month by Congress.
 
The same research that countries with government-controlled care use to deny hip replacements to seniors with osteoporosis, let patients with macular degeneration go blind in one eye before treatment, and deny breakthrough drugs to patients with Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis, has now become part of American federal law.
 
Americans should be shocked, but not surprised. CER is only one step in the Obama Administration’s insidious plan to take over American health care… for our own good.
 
Consider the case of Tom Daschle, President Obama’s first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and America’s leading cheerleader for CER. He wrote a book calling for federal bureaucrats to make “specific coverage decisions” for government-managed health care programs and to “exert tremendous influence on every … provider and payer, even those in the private sector” [emphasis added].
 
Consider the billions set aside in the stimulus bill to begin creating a national database of digitized medical records, Health IT. I have no problem with electronic medical records – they will probably reduce mistakes, lower costs, and even save lives.
 
But I have a big problem with the government mandating the format of those records, fining any insurer who chooses alternative formats, and then using its massive database of confidential patient information to conduct its CER studies. But that’s exactly what the president’s 2010 budget advocates: “When [CER is] coupled with electronic health records, these findings can form the basis for clinical decision support tools.”
 
And consider the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the first health care bill President Obama signed into law. Enacted in 1997 to provide health coverage for children of the working poor, the new SCHIP will cover children of parents who earn up to $106,000 per year. That is, children throughout the lower, middle, and upper-middle class will now grow up eligible for and accustomed to government-managed health care.
 
Unless Americans act quickly, this health care nightmare could soon be reality: when “Generation SCHIP” reaches adulthood and risks losing its “free” health care, voters will finally allow Democrats to socialize medicine once and for all.
 
Armed with its Health IT-based CER studies, the federal government can start rationing health care as it must to control the costs of a massive universal system.
 
When that happens, the consequences here in America will be the same as they have been everywhere else socialized medicine has been tried. Sick patients will wait weeks to see a primary care physician.
 
They will wait months to see a specialist. They will wait years to receive routine treatments. And they will be denied extraordinary treatments altogether. And before long, we’ll understand the true, human costs of a “free” system.
 
If we do not act quickly to reject socialized medicine, the next Katie Hilliard or Claire Everett won’t be across an ocean, but across town, across the street, or maybe even across the kitchen table.
 
Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is the junior senator from South Carolina.
 



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Save101.com

Mar 16, 2009

SCHIP costs federal taxpayers thousands of dollars per year per child. Billions go to politically connect insurance companies. The taxpayers are overpaying. In the free and open market parents can insure a child with HSA insurance for less than $50 a month in most states. This includes a $0 deductible on preventative services. Reform has begun at Save101.com

 

www.tkno.org

Mar 16, 2009

As an African American physician in private practice, I could not agree more with this article. 'We the people' must be proactively diligent at stopping this nonsense by the Obama Administration.

 

Robin Bloor

Mar 16, 2009

The example that leads this article is disingenuous. How is a cancer death in the UK's health system any different from one in the US system caused by denial of insurance coverage by (a bureaucrat working for) an insurer or complete lack of insurance coverage. The UK is certainly no health paradise, but it rates ahead of the American system which costs nearly twice as much and delivers statistically worse outcomes. I think France with its socialized health service tops the list. Didn't you know that health care is already rationed in the US? If you're poor, you get meager rations.

 

frenchman

Mar 16, 2009

One must first be the recipient of the French health care system to make an informed statement. In France, it is no different than the UK. The wait may be shorter (Although it varies), but the delivery of the care is sub par. Hospitals are outdated (In most areas), doctors are apathetic to illnesses as they are not challenged on a daily basis, their knowledge diminishes with time because on their salaries, they cannot afford to go to several conferences a year to learn about the latest advancement in medicine. In short, in France, the socialist health care system is like a conveyor belt: The belt will not stop for anyone. In the US, every patient receives the attention it requires or needs and the expense is well worth it when you become at the receiving end of that care. Good article Rep. DeMint.

 

ross

Mar 16, 2009

This article seems specious at best and a bit of old-fashioned demagogical fear mongering about 'socialized' medicine. I do believe that any level of care, however rationalised, far exceeds the current level of care so hindered by exorbitant costs that it serves to marginalize and exclude the under-privileged. The ultimate cost cutting measure is preventative medicine, a right as inalienable as any other, which should be extended to all socio-economic classes freely and not exclusively as a luxury for the affluent.

 

Mar 16, 2009

This is totally bogus and you must be one of those lobbyists. Why are you not talking about the administrative cost of private insurance? What about the billions spent on stupid advertising? Do you even know how many people die in America with way lesser diseases? People will keep dieing of cancer and AIDs until a proper cure is found. That can NEVER happen by spending billions on advertising and more to pay lobbyists like you and to people to "administer".

 

The Majority

Mar 16, 2009

Sure senator, easy for you to say, you already have socialized health care. How about this, go home to the great state of South Carolina. Go get a regular job, you won't have insurance, or the insurance you can get will be horrible. You won't be able to afford private insurance unless you decide to not pay rent. You won't get any government help because you're a good person and try to work a normal job instead of being a freeloader. Now, get sick or have an accident. You can kiss your job goodbye, your house goodbye, everything. It's time you wake up and realize the reality of health care in the US. We pay more than anybody else, and have less coverage than anybody else. Quit defending a broken system. Quit hurting your constituents. Quit hurting America's competitiveness (like our auto industry can't compete with other countries because of health care costs). End the madness.

 

nunya

Mar 16, 2009

People are denied life savings tests and procedures in the United States EVERYDAY. This is shameless propaganda.

 

Mar 16, 2009

If the system actually works as badly as you suggest, would not the children who grew up under it only want to abolish it the more? Is there, perhaps, some link between you and certain businesses which would lose money under SCHIP, once they could no longer gouge citizens? I suppose what motivates you doesn't matter, though, as your argument is specious and self-contradictory. If you care so much, perhaps you should pay your own insurance premium, and stop sucking at the teat of socialized-medicine yourself, Junior.

 

tmb

Mar 16, 2009

So who claimed government sponsored insurance, not socialized medicine by the way, was perfect? Any large bureaucracy is going to have problems. How about some horror stories dealing with our byzantine system? Here in the great USA she may not of had any insurance leaving her family with tens of thousands of dollar of debt. I've been there, sick without insurance. I'll take a Canadian style systerm any day.

 

Canuck

Mar 16, 2009

What an incredible piece of propaganda. Health care in the States is great if you're rich or the insurance providers. No argument there. Everyone else has to choose which fingers to save or go bankrupt. Look at the infant mortality numbers for an example of how ridiculous US healthcare is. Canada, France and the UK are all better than the US. So is Cuba. Yeah, but God forbid you have to wait 6-12 months for that knee replacement, especially if you're rich. Also, do you honestly not realize that the number of women of any age who don't get these "routine screening tests" because they can't afford health insurance is orders of magnitude higher than the statistically few women who develop these diseases before the age of 25. You're argument is essentially that these girls would have gotten these screenings if there wasn't socialized medicine, but you forget to note that they would also have to be rich and not have an HMO that would probably have the same limitations anyway.

 

Mar 16, 2009

The following opinion was brought to you by the Republican Taliban Party and its mouthpiece the DCExaminer. No free press allowed here.

 

Troy Weymouth

Mar 16, 2009

The issue is likely soon to be moot. USG tax revenues will likely soon drop to $1T/yr for the next decade. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cannot be funded, so must end. There is no money left to spend, and no one left to loan endless trillions of dollars for idealistic spending sprees. The Tower of Babel project is over.

 

Civilian Health & Medical Program of the U.S. (CHAMPUS)

Mar 16, 2009

I currently have national health care. I was told that if I devoted 20 years of my life to the service of my country, I would receive free medical care for life. Retired medical care for the Army is called CHAMPUS or more recently TRI-CARE. Last year, I almost cut my finger off in an accident, and my free medical care only cost me $1,200. My wife is in need of an insulin pump - my free program will kick in once we pay the $3,200 co-pay. That is two months and two weeks of my retirement income. You only need to look at the health care we provide our veterans and retired service members, then ask yourself, is that what I really want?

 

tjem

Mar 16, 2009

There is something missing from the hypocritical senator's commentary. Where are his crocodile tears for the millions of women in the USA who don't get the pap smear test because they cannot afford US health insurance? Where is any shred of concern for the 47 million with no health cover. How many of them die needlessly?

 

Christopher Walker

Mar 17, 2009

I like this guy. He's one of the few true conservatives in the U.S. Senate. I'm starting to wonder if he has any plans to run for president in 2012. However, I anticipate there will be many fine candidates.

 

Michael

Mar 17, 2009

"Healthcare" is a profession where energetic insightful minds go. It is sad that the unreflective dark, hateful, and envious "wants vs "needs" of the "liberal" mind actually think they can imprison a group of people towards their own ends and that it makes sense. In 1 generation the brightest and compassionate leave professions placed under a government/command relationship and the "system" liberals thought they commanded becomes the post office. ...99% of all drugs, diagnostics procedures and research occurs in the US. The socialized systems worldwide benefit and are propped up by our system.

 

Ralph Dosser

Mar 17, 2009

All Americans want is health care as good as Mr. DeMint gets for free from the United States government. Mr. DeMint will apparently fight tooth and nail to keep them from getting it.

 

Michelle Kneute

Mar 17, 2009

There is a lot of speculation on how healthcare reform would work in the U.S., but I haven't seen many facts as to how it is really working in other country's. Yes, we've had snapshot examples, but I think we need more details. How do medical professionals continue their education? What are the requirements? For example, in NJ an X-ray technician has to obtain a certain amount of credits per year in order to renew his/her yearly license. I believe doctors and nurses have more stringent requirements. Healthcare is a profession that is in demand where someone could make a very good living. Will that continue? Are they satisfied in their careers? How will the taxpayer be affected? After all, this is going to be paid for collectively by the taxpayers. What about people who don't pay taxes? Will they have to pay this tax? These are all things we should consider before making a decision.

 

Michelle Kneute

Mar 17, 2009

There is a lot of speculation on how healthcare reform would work in the U.S., but I haven't seen many facts as to how it is really working in other country's. Yes, we've had snapshot examples, but I think we need more details. How do medical professionals continue their education? What are the requirements? For example, in NJ an X-ray technician has to obtain a certain amount of credits per year in order to renew his/her yearly license. I believe doctors and nurses have more stringent requirements. Healthcare is a profession that is in demand where someone could make a very good living. Will that continue? Are they satisfied in their careers? How will the taxpayer be affected? After all, this is going to be paid for collectively by the taxpayers. What about people who don't pay taxes? Will they have to pay this tax? These are all things we should consider before making a decision.

 

Susan Wayne

Mar 24, 2009

How can we help to stop this awful process to socialize medicine? This is suppose to be the land of the freedom of choice. If that is taken away in every area, why be free? We will be slaves to the government.

 

Bill Marshall

Mar 26, 2009

I strongly urge you to fight the president's irresponsible spending spree. He and the Dems are spending money we do not have. For every Trillion $ each Citizens share is $3,500. The budget needs to cut way back. The health care plan needs to be completely revised to get the government out of health care. Anyone who believes the government is the solution is deluded. Stay strong.

 

Dietforever

Mar 27, 2009

Sir: I don't know what goes on in other Countries has to do with Us. Why would you thank that things would be the same here. I agree with a lot of the people that have left comments. The price of health care & medications are out of sight. I have a prescription that cost me $400 a month. Another one that cost about $450 every 3 months that I've been talking for about 2 years & this year MEDICARE will not cover it any more.I have many prescriptions that I can't get a generic for. So don't tell me about high cost. Maybe the lobbyist are clouding you're judgement. I would really like to know all the facts of your story. If it's all true I'm sorry, if not well you know. Why can't you & Congress do something about the outragteous cost we would have to have such a health care coverage. You'll want to know what is really funny? I got an application from AIG today. I thought I already owned 79.9%

 

Pamela Farrell

Mar 27, 2009

I agree with you stand against healthcare reform. Thanks again, for standing firm in your conservative convictions.

 

Marilyn in Columbia

Mar 27, 2009

We don't need "health insurance" but rather "affordable health care". If you go to the doctor for a runny nose, payment goes through your insurance. No wonder half the country can't afford health care. When I was in college I was very poor but went to the doctor whenever I needed to. Eventhough I rode the city bus and worked PT at min wage, I could still afford to go. I did not HAVE insurance and DID NOT NEED IT. I payed. Insurance companies drove up the cost of care. Health insurance should be for catastrophic health problems. Cut out the insurance MIDDLE MAN.

 

W. Barnes

Mar 31, 2009

"Sick patients will wait weeks to see a primary care physician." Of course this is an exaggeration, Senator. The primary care physicians are a private business. They will remain a private business. The only thing that will change is that all people in our great country will be able to go to doctors and the doctors will bill the govt. clearinghouse, just like Medicare. Please stop the scare tactics. But did you know, Senator, when my wife took her 88-year-old mother to the emergency room of a Pensacola hospital due to an extreme stomach ache, the wait endured was 7 hours. My mother-in-law is incontinent. Do you know how degrading this was for her. The Federal Gov't will NOT ration health care; it will only pay the bills. But under the current system, the profit motive knows how to ration access to doctors and a hospital WILL deprive an 89 year-old woman of care even when she has a stomach ache that feels like a knife in her side.

 

TK

Apr 1, 2009

If we think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is free. Wait, apparently many of the readers here never took a basic economics course, NOTHING is free, there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as free health care. YOU will pay for it, just in taxes instead of premiums and there will be no choice to have it or not anymore. Do we need healthcare reform, you better well believe it, but nationalizing is NOT the answer, never has been, never will be. Amazing that we didn't have these issues until HMOs were developed, we need to go back to major medical and ditch this whole HMO/PPO/etc system we have now.

 

William

Apr 1, 2009

Dear Sir, The Government canNOT be worse than these Insurance Companies that get paid based on how many claims they refuse. At least the Government will TRY to provide coverage and make people healthier. Insurance Companies are in it for profit, so are the huge drug companies that I see in the Doctors Office buying them lunch and gold trips. The government is NOT in it for profit like these folks. Please reconsider. THANKS!

 

vicci3376

Apr 2, 2009

Great Article Senator. As Americans, we already have an opportunity to receive universal healthcare- you need only join the military, serve your country, and when you retire. . . you will continue to have healthcare. I would eagerly support any legislation that provides for government healthcare for any citizen who was not accepted into the military. Thank You.

 

Janet61

Apr 2, 2009

Thank you Senator DeMint for championing sensible causes. Keep up the good work! I wonder who is paying these nutcases to spam your comment line.

 

Bill

Apr 2, 2009

Somehow my parents managed to live life in this great country, raise me, through college, deal with terminal illness, without falling into wailing and weeping about how someone was not providing for them. Free country, not free lunch. Free, not safe. Free, not provide for.

 

Bill

Apr 2, 2009

Somehow my parents managed to live life in this great country, raise me, through college, deal with terminal illness, without falling into wailing and weeping about how someone was not providing for them. Free country, not free lunch. Free, not safe. Free, not provide for.

 

t.j. gildea

May 11, 2009

Will the USA senate and house and all government workers have the same insurance as the American people or will they still have better coverage?

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Graphic surveys NFL players concerning concussions

NFL union pans commissioner's call for players to report on teammates' possible concussions

The NFL Players Association opposes commissioner Roger Goodell's call for players to tell their teams' medical staffs if they think a teammate shows symptoms of a concussion, saying that is not an adequate solution. Full story

Economy

NC state treasurer issues gift ban for employees, limits on soliciting for charity

State Treasurer Janet Cowell unveiled new rules Friday banning employees from taking gifts from companies that do substantial business with the agency and setting a limit on charitable solicitations. Full story

Entertainment

Pedro Almodovar discusses his childhood, his influences and what he won't put on film

Sex. Drugs. Prostitution. Pedophilia. Rape. Pedro Almodovar has been able to translate some of the most delicate subjects to the big screen with grace and humor. Full story