Washington
(Aug 17, 2009)
In the three weeks since House Democrats left Washington for the August recess, they have heard over and over again from outraged Americans who oppose their scheme for a big-government takeover of health care that will raise costs, ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of decisions that should be made by patients and doctors. And a detailed analysis of the House Democrats’ bill shows that the American people are right. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made the following comment in response:
|
“We need real health care reform to fix what’s broken, not a big-government takeover. That’s what the American people are asking for, and that’s what they deserve. I hope my Democratic colleagues have gotten the message, and that they will return to Washington ready to work with us on real, bipartisan reform.”
|
Despite what President Obama and congressional Democrats claim, the bill that passed three committees in the House would put government bureaucrats in charge of decisions that should be made by patients, their families, and their doctors. Here are just a few examples of how:
- Page 33; Section 123 – The bill establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to make determinations about health care services that will be available to Americans including “categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes and cost sharing.”
- Page 84-85; Section 203 – This section requires the Commissioner to specify what health care benefits can be made available under four types of plans in the Exchange, rationing care for those in the plans.
- Page 122; Section 223 – The Secretary of HHS would decide which prescription drugs are made available in the government-run plan by negotiating drug prices for drugs not covered by Medicare. This will impose price controls and eliminate competition in the market, a key reason why prices under Medicare Part D have decreased. Evidence has shown that government officials in other countries have used this power to establish formularies, which deny access to needed treatments on the basis of cost.
- Page 26; Section 121(c) – prohibits any health plan restriction “unrelated to clinical appropriateness” (which is not further defined). This may restrict care of military members that are related to military mission requirements separate from what might be an eventual administrative definition of “clinical appropriateness.”
- Multiple Sections, e.g. Sections 112, 113, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124 – Requires private insurers to comply with new coverage and underwriting rules in order to offer insurance products both inside and outside of the new national and state insurance exchanges.
- Page 253; Section 1122, lines 10-18 – The government, in creating a process to “validate relative value units” in the physician payment schedule, will weigh and determine what aspects of what physicians do matters. For example, is time, mental effort, professional judgment, technical skill, or physical effort more important in determining how much a physician should be paid for a service?
- Page 501-524; Section 1401 – Creates a “Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission” where government employees will decide what treatments are most effective, but does not provide protection to ensure doctors will retain the ability to decide how to treat patients. These provisions do not prohibit government health payers from denying coverage on the basis of cost.
Polls show the depth of the American peoples’ frustration with out-of-touch Washington Democrats. Are they getting the message?