President Obama and his congressional Democratic allies miss no opportunity to accuse critics of government-run health care of spreading false information when they claim Obamacare will produce health care rationing, particularly in the treatment of the terminally ill, the handicapped, and seniors.
But check out these seven graphs from Robert Pear at the end of his story of The New York Times, entitled “A basis is seen for some health plan fears among elderly.” Read them carefully because they reveal, without saying it directly, that seniors and Obamacare critics have a serious point :
“In effect, Mr. Obama says he can cut bloated Medicare payments to inefficient health care providers without adversely affecting any beneficiaries. Many doctors are dubious.
“Medicare officials recently proposed changes that could increase payments for some primary care services but reduce payments to many specialists. Cardiologists would be especially hard hit, with cuts of more than 20 percent in payments for electrocardiograms and 12 percent for heart stent procedures.
“‘Cuts of this magnitude could cripple cardiology practices and threaten access to services for millions of patients,’ said Dr. John C. Lewin, chief executive of the American College of Cardiology.
“Mr. Obama has been unable to dispel the concerns of older Americans because the health care bills in Congress are long, complex and evolving.
“Moreover, if a bill becomes law, no one can say for sure how it may be applied or extended. The 1965 law that created Medicare prohibited ‘any federal interference’ in ‘the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided,’ or in the operation of any institution providing health care.
“Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University, called this ‘a majestic message from Congress about how it expected the Medicare program to be run.’
“But the meaning of that guarantee has shrunk as Medicare officials and Congress have set more detailed standards for doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and others in Medicare.”
The last three graphs are particularly prescient because advocates of expanded government always claim their proposals won’t have dire consequences such as expanded government bureaucracy and regulation. Then when those consequences come about as predicted by critics, the program advocates invent scapegoats, usually in the private sector, to blame for the problems.
It’s like the Peanuts cartoon. She ALWAYS jerks the football out of the way and Charlie Brown – that would be you and me – ALWAYS ends flat on his back.
You can read the balance of Pear’s report here.
UPDATE: Examiner columnist Hugh Hewitt on the issue
Chapman University law professor, talk radio host and Washington Examiner host Hugh Hewitt – he was also a high-ranking appointee in the first Bush administration at the U.S. Office of Personnel Managment – offers additional thoughts on the health care rationing issue and the state-of-play for the Obama administration at the mid-point of the August congressional recess.
Hewitt sees three reasons why Obama will not cut his losses on Obamacare now – a move Hewitt thinks could well lead to a re-energizing of the president’s agenda. The three reasons Obama won’t do this are ….. no, you gotta go here to Hugh’s blog. And check out the archive of Hugh’s superb Examiner columns here.
